Page 166 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

252 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 37
men compensation insurance premium is admissible as Cenvat credit. I, there-
fore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. The appellants shall be
entitled for consequential relief if any as per law.
(Dictated and Pronounced in open Court)

_______

2020 (37) G.S.T.L. 252 (Tri. - Del.)

IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
[COURT NO. IV]
Shri Bijay Kumar, Member (T) and Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (J)
RAJ ENGINEERING
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, UDAIPUR
Final Order No. ST/A/51227/2019-CU(DB), dated 24-6-2019 in Appeal
No. ST/50465/2016-DB
Demand based on income tax returns and FORM AS 26 - All the ser-
vices duly explained by appellant with the respective amount received qua the
same - Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand irrespective to a lesser
extent than it was proposed - Investigation got initiated based on Income Tax
data about taxable value for respective year as received on account of services
relating to road, tube-well/bore well/submersible pump and private house,
which are exempt - Thus taxable value in FYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 was zero -
Appellant was entitled for exemption from payment of Service Tax on the en-
tire value of taxable turnover was ` 9,68,467 in FY 2010-11 - HELD : Demand
confirmed without appreciating the relevant documents - Adjudicating author-
ity observed that difference in tax liability is mostly on account of calculation
by availing abatement, whereas it was not admissible to them - Mistake of ap-
pellant for short declaration of tax liability is rather held to be a bona fide mis-
take on part of appellant - Declaration denied to be a false declaration - Since
documents are on record to appreciate the threshold limit as well as the enti-
tlement of abatement as impressed upon by appellant, matter remanded back
for de novo adjudication of entire demand, interest and penalty. [paras 11, 12]
Matter remanded
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Vijay Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri R.K. Majhi, Authorized Representative (DR),
for the Respondent.
[Order per : Rachna Gupta, Member (J)]. - The present appeal has been
preferred against the Order-in-Original No. 0050-15-16, dated 31-12-2015/
6-1-2016.
2. The relevant factual matrix for the purpose is that the Appellants are
registered with Service Tax Commissionerate being engaged in providing ser-
vices under the category of Erection, Commissioning and Installation, “Construc-
tion Services other than residential complex (including commercial/industrial

GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  166