Sanjiv Srivastava DECISION
P.K. Choudhary, Member (J)
1. The Appellant has filed this appeal against the impugned Order-in-Original demanding Service Tax of Rs. 3,43,97,544/-for the period from 2009-10 to 2012-13 by issuance of Show-Cause-Notice dated 29.10.2015
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the Appellant was engaged by M/s Steel Works Construction Limited (HSCL) and M/s Baghel Infrastructure Private Limited, M/s Reliance Infrastructure Limited, M/S SASAN & M/s HINDALCO etc. for construction related services/works contract services in relation to construction of road, reservoir etc. The Revenue on specific information, undertook scrutiny of records of the Appellant and found short payment of service tax on comparison of amount shown in their ST-3 returns with that in Profit & Loss Account in the respective period from 2009-10 to 2012-13. The Revenue, therefore, demanded service tax of Rs. 3,43,97,544/-on differential value for the period from 2009-10 to 2012-13. The Appellant contested the Show-Cause-Notice but the demand proposed in the Show-Cause-Notice was confirmed. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.
3. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the Appellant had undertaken 'Works Contract Services' and had received contractual payment on execution of 'works contract services' and submitted copies of the work orders, payment particulars, copies of invoices and form 26AS. The work orders show that they have executed composite work including exempted services in relation to construction of PMGSY Road etc. for which they have also submitted work orders.
4. The Ld. Counsel has also submitted that the Revenue has issued show-cause-notice without making proper inquires and ignoring the documents submitted by the Appellant in this regard. The regular audit during the period (2009-10, 2010-2011, 2011-12 and 2012-13) had also been conducted by the Audit Wing of the Revenue before the issuance of Show-Cause-Notice on 16.10.2014. Copies of the audit reports have been submitted and it was pleaded that all audit objections have been duly complied except one for the year 2009-10. The Appellant also submitted copies of the invoices raised.
5. It is also submitted that they have duly discharged their tax liability on taxable/'abated value of services' and have also submitted copy of the reconciliation chart for tax payment. It was further argued that the demand is barred by limitation as regular yearly audit has been conducted by the Revenue and t........