By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, FEB 06, 2018: A Service Tax demand of Rs.5,32,526/- was confirmed against the appellant for the period 01.07.2003 to 19.07.2005 under the category of "Erection & Commissioning service" allegedly rendered to M/s. IOCL with reference to setting up of Petrol Pumps at Kherli, Dausa & Usmanpur.

Before the CESTAT, the appellant submitted that they had closed operation in 2003 and had never done any work of erection of Petrol Pump for M/s. IOCL during the impugned period. That the information purportedly received by Revenue from IOCL on the basis of which the demand was issued was not revealed to the appellant.

The Bench observed –

++ Neither the original authority nor the first appellate authority has given details of work order and nature of work executed by the appellant to confirm the tax liability. The appellants repeatedly pleaded that they have closed their firm in 2003 itself. This was not considered by the lower authorities. In fact, the impugned order puts the onus on the appellant to establish that they have not rendered taxable service as alleged in the show cause notice.

++ Person who is alleging should establish the fact. No material evidence is available in the proceedings before the lower authorities except information purported to have been received from IOCL. This is strongly denied by the appellant.

Concluding that the impugned order cannot be sustained, the same was set aside with liberty to the original authority to proceed afresh after providing all the supporting details to the appellant.

(See 2018-TIOL-451-CESTAT-DEL)