Page 9 - GSTL_30th April 2020_Vol 35_Part 5

2020 ] INDEX - 30th April, 2020 vii
Commercial or Industrial Construction Service (CICS) not applicable on
composite works contracts - See under WORKS CONTRACT SERVICE ... 574
Composite works contracts - Levy of Service Tax thereon - See under
WORKS CONTRACT SERVICE .......................... 574
Contribution to District Mineral Foundation (DMF), National Mineral
Exploration Trust (NMET) and Goa Mineral Ore Permanent Fund Trust
(GMOPFT) on mining lease, classification and rate of GST - See under
MINING LEASE .................................. 590
DEMAND :
— Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) - Deployment of officers in JV company
- Expenses towards deputation of employee recovered by assessee on
actual basis from JV company - Activity cannot be categorized under BAS
- Even otherwise deputation of employee in JV company cannot be held
to be service - Section 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994 — Rajasthan State Mines &
Minerals Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex. & S.T., Jaipur (Tri. - Del.) ................. 561
— Business Auxiliary Service - Whether 51% equity stake granted to assessee
by Implementation Agreement, in JV company, to be treated as “Business
Auxiliary Service” - HELD : Category under which activity to be treated
as service, not given by Commissioner - Grant of 51% share in JV not
covered in any of sub-heading under “Business Auxiliary Service” as
defined in Section 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994 - Also, 51% of equity
granted in year, 2008-09, while notice issued beyond limit of five years -
Therefore, show cause notice could not have been issued - Demand, not
sustainable - Section 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994 — Rajasthan State Mines &
Minerals Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex. & S.T., Jaipur (Tri. - Del.) ................. 561
— Limitation - Extended period, invocation of - Removal of capital goods
stock to sister concern upon reversal of actual credit taken thereon -
HELD : Demand pertains to February and March, 2002 and show cause
notice issued on 8-3-2006 - Assessee submitting ER-1 regularly and
regular audit of assessee also being undertaken - No case of deliberate
suppression of facts etc. made out by department - Also, frequent
changes of law and different circulars issued by C.B.E. & C. during
relevant time therefore, different interpretation by assessee, possible -
Extended period cannot be invoked - Demand clearly barred by
limitation - Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 corresponding to
Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 — Lupin Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T.
(LTU), Mumbai (Tri. - Mumbai) ............................. 576
— Limitation - Invocation of larger period - Acquiring of land on behalf of
JV company, known to Department before issue of show cause notice -
Entire issue of non-transfer of land to JV company, taken by Government
of India and by State of Rajasthan, subsequent to acquisition of land, to
be considered only as change of opinion in subsequent periods -
Therefore, no case of suppression of facts, so as to invoke larger period of
limitation, made out - Also, intent to evade payment of duty, which is
sine qua non for invoking proviso under Section 73A of Finance Act,
1994, not apparent from record - Demand time-barred - Section 73A of
Finance Act, 1994 — Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex. & S.T.,
Jaipur (Tri. - Del.) .................................... 561
Deployment of officers in JV company, demand under BAS not sustainable
- See under DEMAND ............................... 561
GST LAW TIMES  30th April 2020  9