JUDGMENT

P. R. Ramachandra Menon, C.J. - This is an appeal filed under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act,1944 (for short, 'the Act'), whereby the challenge raised against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Service Tax, Raipur - I (for short, 'the Adjudicating Authority'), came to be dismissed as per a common order dated 31.01.2013. The points suggested by the Appellant as involving in 'substantial questions of law' are as given below :

i. Whether, in facts and circumstances of the present case the learned Tribunal vide impugned order is correct in not considering submissions / documents for wrong invocation of jurisdiction ?

ii. Whether, in facts and circumstances of the present case the learned Tribunal is correct in holding that the Commissioner, Central Excise, Raipur had jurisdiction to initiate proceedings when the work in question was executed in the State of Orissa, Bihar and West Bengal i.e., outside the geographical limits of Raipur jurisdiction ?

iii. Whether, in facts and circumstances of the present case the Appellate Tribunal vide impugned order is correct in confirming demand of service tax invoking extended period of limitation under proviso to section 73 of the Act ?

iv. Whether, in facts and circumstances of the present case the Appellate Tribunal vide impugned order is correct in confirming recovery of interest U/S 75 of the Act ?

v. Whether, in facts and circumstances of the present case the Appellate Tribunal vide impugned order is correct in confirming imposition of penalties U/S 76,77 & 78 of the Act ?

2. The sequence of events is as follows :

(a) The Appellant, admittedly, is engaged in providing services of erection, commissioning and installation to the service recipient M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited (M/s. L&T). It is stated that the Appellant had entered into a contract with the Awarder of the work i.e., M/s. L&T for mechanical fabrication and erection and also for supply of labour for various activities at the site. It is stated that the raw materials for fabrication of the structures are provided by M/s. L&T and the Appellant's fabrication and erection work as mentioned above consisted of providing common beams, crane girder, roof, truss purlins etc. which involves making and cutting, fit up, welding as per drawing, specification and structure specified by the Awarder i.e. M/s. L&T.

(b) The Intelligence Wing of the Central Excise gathered information that the Appellant was providing services as aforesaid without even getting registered with the Service Tax Department and paying any service tax on the taxable services provided by it, particularly, for the period from 01.10.2006 to 15.12.2011. It was accordingly, that a summons was issued to the Appellant in terms of Section 14 of the Act on 27.01.2012, asking the proprietor of the concern to appear on 17.02.2012. On the said date, statement of the Appellant was recorded, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A/2. Subsequently, statement of the service recipient (M/s. L&T) was recorded by the authorities of the Excise Department, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A/3. With reference to the materials collected, Annexure-A/4 show-cause notice was issued to the Appellant on 17.04.2012, referring to the incriminating circumstances and to explain the position. This was responded by the Appellant by submitting Annexure-A/5 reply, stating that the Appellant was under the bona fide impression that no registration was necessary, primarily, for the reason that the activity being done by the Appellant was only a 'manufacturing activity' coming within the definition of term 'Manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the relevant Act. It was also pointed out that, insofar as it was a 'manufacturing activity', no service tax was liable to be paid. That apart, according to the Appellant, service tax in respect of the entire installation has already been satisfied by the M/s.L&T / service recipient and since servi