9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vam, AC (AR) ORDER Appellant has filed ROM application on 9.10.2015 against this Tribunal's Final Order No.40448/2015 dt. 17.3.2015. 2. Ld.Advocate appearing for the applicant-appellant submits that Tribunal while upholding the penalty of Rs. 6,03,016/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, held that appellants have collected the service tax and not remitted to the government which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SCN, under Section 73, the penalty was held to be not payable under Section 73. Therefore, he pleads that in this case also since tax was paid in full, there is no penalty imposable. He also submits that their case is fully covered under Works Contract and therefore they are not liable for payment of service tax for the earlier period under construction service. 3. On the other hand, Ld. A.R. for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 78 penalty. As regards their contention that tax was collected and paid in time, this Bench clearly recorded that tax was paid to the department and also appropriated only after detection by the department as they had not voluntarily paid and not registered with service tax and not filed returns, which is clearly brought out in the findings at para-6 of the order. Therefore, I do not find any ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
