S.N. PAWAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal and stay petition are directed against order -in -appeal No. NSK -EXCUS -000 -APP -240 -13 -14, dated 22 -8 -2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Nashik. In the impugned order, the learned appellate authority has upheld the confirmation of service tax demand of Rs. 20,48,456/ - along with interest thereon and also imposed penalties against the appellant, S.N. Pawar, who undertook works contract service for Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL). Aggrieved with the same, the appellant is before us. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the recipient of the service in this case is M/s. HAL which is a Defence PSU. Therefore, the appellant was under the bona fide belief that the services rendered to a Defence PSU are not liable to service tax inasmuch as only commercial or industrial construction is subject to service tax. It is his contention that no service tax is imposable on service rendered to such an undertaking. The learned counsel further submits that the show cause notice is time barred inasmuch as the same was issued only on 17 -8 -2012 demanding service tax for the period April 2007 to March 2012. Therefore, only a small portion of the demand is within the normal period and the tax liability approximately is Rs. 3.68 lakhs. Accordingly, he prayed for grant of stay.

(2.) THE learned Additional Commissioner appearing for Revenue, on the other hand, points out that HAL is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and therefore is a commercial undertaking. The appellant himself was undertaking the construction services for various agencies and was registered with the department for commercial or industrial construction since 2005. Therefore, the appellant's plea that he was not aware of the tax liability cannot be accepted. It is his contention that the extended period of time is rightly invoked in this case inasmuch as the appellant being a service tax registrant cannot take the plea of ignorance. He further submits that the appellant also did not reply to the show cause notice nor appeared for personal hearing before the adjudicating authority and even before the appellate authority though sufficient opportunities were given. The appellant did not choose to defend the matter in person. In these circumstances, he pleads that the appellant be put to terms.