9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor who are undertaking various civil contracts of the Government. In these circumstances, we find no merit in the contention of the appellant that he has only undertaken the services in the form of liaison work and back office services that were rendered to the contractors. In view of the above we find no infirmity in the impugned demand with regard to the duty and interest. - However, penalty is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant has shown some amount as receipt for architectural consultancy but he was not registered with the Revenue as service provider. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant demanding Service Tax in respect of amount received from the clients for Architectural Services . The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and also imposed the penalty. The appellant filed an appeal before the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id, imposition of penalty under Section 78 is harsh. 5. The Revenue submitted that in the Income Tax Return, which was duly signed by the appellant, an income was shown as receipt for architectural consultancy . Statement of the appellant was also recorded and in his statement the appellant admitted that the appellant is associated with the Contractors who undertake civil works and the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that he has only undertaken the services in the form of liaison work and back office services that were rendered to the contractors. In view of the above we find no infirmity in the impugned demand with regard to the duty and interest. 6.1 In respect of the penalty imposed under Section 78, we find that the penalty amount of ₹ 74,410/- is on the higher side therefore the same is reduced t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
