SHUBHAM ELECTRICALS Vs. CST & ST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal is preferred against the adjudication order dated 18/01/2013 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Rohtak. The impugned order confirms service tax liability of Rs. 1,53,14,782/ - for the period 2006 -2007 to 2010 -2011 apart from interest under Sec. 75 and penalties under Sec. 77 and 78, while dropping penalty under Sec. 76 of the Finance Act, 1944. Heard the respective parties.

(2.) Proceedings were initiated by a show cause notice dated 21/10/11. The show cause notice and the impugned adjudication order are vitiated by incoherence and vagueness, to which aspect we shall advert to in some detail, later herein.

(3.) The show cause notice asserts that: (a) the appellant was registered for providing Works Contract Service, taxable under Sec. 65 (105) (zzzza) of the Act; (b) that information was gathered by the Anti -Evasion Branch, Delhi which revealed that the appellant was engaged in providing taxable services to other clients but was not remitting the service tax due; (c) that investigation was therefore initiated and several letters were addressed to the appellant seeking copies of transactional documents and other relevant correspondence such as letters and agreements entered into in relation to Common Wealth Games Projects, copies of interim and final bills raised for providing services in relation to CWG projects and other documents such as audited financial statements and the like; that the appellant failed to respond; thereupon reminder letters were issued; that the appellant vide his letter dated 17/6/11 furnished certain documents including copies of its registration certificate, balance sheets from 2005 -2006 to 2009 -2010, service tax returns with challans, copies of award letters received from DDA/CPWD etc. and information of having received Rs. 375.16 lakhs for CWG works and had intimated that pending amount would approximately Rs. 53 lakhs; that the appellant submitted copies of 28 letters in respect of works executed (details of which were set out in a table in para 5 of the show cause notice); that further investigation and summons ensued; that from scrutiny of the documents submitted by the appellant and the investigation, the appellant is seen to have filed nil ST -3 returns except for 2007 -2008 and to have remitted service tax of a mere Rs. 998/ -; and from the award letters submitted, appellant appears to have rendered taxable services but failed to remit the tax due.