2013 (11) TMI 643

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... noticed. The assessee is a registrant for providing the taxable service, of Management, Maintenance and Repair service. During the course of audit for the period July 2005 to March 2008, it was revealed (from the scrutiny of invoices issued by the appellant and other related documents) that the appellant had provided construction related services to M/s. Reliance Industries Limited, Jamnagar (RIL .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ax recovered from RIL, Jamnagar; and on other issues (not germane for the purpose of this appeal). Eventually after due process, the adjudicating order dated 13.10.2011 was passed rejecting the claim of the appellant for immunity from initiation of proceedings for recovery of penalty. The adjudicating authority imposed penalties under Section 76 and 78 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved thereby, appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... initiation of proceedings for recovery of penalty; except where circumstances justify invocation of the provisions of Section 73(4) of the Act. Reference could be made to the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalore vs. Master Kleen - 2012 (25) STR 439 (Karnataka). 5. On the aforesaid circumstances, the adjudication order as confirmed by the appellate order, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X