9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the classification of the services, found reasonable. Moreover the appellant, though, in my prima facie view, the issue on merit also contentious, without contesting the demand they discharged entire service tax liability alongwith interest. They only sought waiver of penalties in this appeal. - facts and nature of service provided by the appellant, I agree with the appellant that entertainment of bonafide belief by the them is proper and they have made out a case for waiver of penalties by invoking Section 80. I therefore waive penalties imposed under Section 76, 77 and 78. Since appellant have not contested the service tax demand and interest confirmed and paid by them, the same is maintained - Decided in favour of assessee. - APPEAL NO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant period and not paid service tax on the services of site formation and clearances, excavation and earth moving and demolition which became taxable w.e.f. 16/6/2005. The period involved in the present case is 2007-08 and 2008-09. On these observations the Revenue issued show cause notice which culminated into adjudication order wherein demand of service tax amounting to ₹ 3,00,771/- was confirmed, interest under Section-75, penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 were also imposed. Appellant aggrieved by the said order filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the order-in-original rejecting the appeal of the appellant, therefore appellant is before me. 2.1 The appeal filed by the appellant is only for waiver of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he work involved is classifiable under taxable services therefore bonafide belief cannot be entertained by the appellant, hence the penalties are correctly imposed by the original authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by Ld. AR and perused the records and grounds of appeal. 6. I find that it is the submissions of the appellant that they had bonafide belief that their services are of supply of tangible goods which was not taxable at the relevant time, therefore they have not taken registration and not discharged the service tax. They referred the purchase order. On going through the purchase order, I find the details of work allotted to the appellant by their client wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
