Page 145 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

2020 ] TATA STEEL LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., JAMSHEDPUR 63
[Order]. - This appeal is filed by the assessee (T.G.S. for short) against the
Order-in-Original No. 16/ST/Commissioner/2011, dated 30-5-2011 passed by
the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Jamshedpur. Brief facts
leading to the present appeal, inter alia, are that the appellant during the year
under dispute had provided “Commissioning and Installation” and “Mainte-
nance or repair services” without payment of Service Tax; that the same was no-
ticed during the course of checking of records of the appellant-assessee by the
Preventive Team of the Revenue, that the appellant appeared to have taken in-
put/service credit for providing above services; that the assessee had provided
the above services to M/s. Tata Steel without payment of Service Tax though
there was a contract for the above services, etc. Vide show cause notice dated
8-10-2010, TGS was asked to explain inter alia the non-payment of Service Tax, in
response to which, it appears that the appellant filed its replies on various dates
contending that the contract and the provision of service was only by one unit to
another unit which is otherwise a service for the self and therefore, there was no
liability to Service Tax. The Adjudicating Authority vide impugned Order-in-
Original, however, considering the explanation, the contract entered into be-
tween the appellant and the Tata Steels and the statements recorded held that the
appellant was an independent service provider and consequently, the receipt of
service by Tata Steels Ltd. was liable to Service Tax which is not a service ren-
dered to the self and thus confirmed the demands proposed in the show cause
notice.
2. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the Senior Advo-
cate, Dr. Samir Chakraborty and Abhijit Biswas, Advocate, appeared for the as-
sessee and A. Roy, Ld. DR appeared for the Revenue.
3. The Ld. Senior Advocate reiterates the contentions urged before the
Lower Authority and he would also submit, drawing our attention to the show
cause notice, that the period in dispute is January, 2005 to 31-3-2010 for which the
show cause notice, has been issued on 8-10-2010 by invoking the extended period
of limitation while all the details as to the alleged suppression had been picked
up only from the records maintained by the appellant, by the Preventive Team of
the Central Excise Headquarters and therefore, the demand is not justified. The
Ld. Senior Advocate also relied on following decisions in support of his submis-
sion :-
(i) General Manager, BSNL Cellular Mobile Services v. Commr. of GST & C.
Ex. [2019 (25) G.S.T.L. 238 (T)]
(ii) Sahara India Commercial Corporation v. Commr. of C. Ex. [2019 (21)
G.S.T.L. 170 (T)]
(iii) C.C., C. Ex. & S.T. v. Parker Markwel Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (24)
G.S.T.L. 42 (T)]
(iv) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex. [2007 (8) S.T.R.
527 (T-Kol.)]
(v) Precot Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2006 (2) S.T.R. 495
(T)]
(vi) Tata Steel Ltd. (Growth Shop) v. Commr. of C. Ex. & S.T. [2014 (35)
S.T.R. 374 (T-Kol.)]
(vii) Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex. [2008 (228) E.L.T. 124 (T-
Kol.)]

GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  145