9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of failure to take registration. it has to be stated, that this is not a case where the appellant totally failed to take registration. Appellant had registration under the category Works Contract Service and not under commercial or industrial construction service. Department is of the view that the service would fall under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service. Both being construction services, the contention of the appellant that they believed that services would fall within the category of works contract service is probable and acceptable. Demand of service tax with interest confirmed - Levy of penalty u/s 77 & 78 waived invoking the provisions of section 80 - Decided partly in favor of assessee. - Appeal No. ST/25489/2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty of ₹ 25,000/- was imposed under Section 77(1)(a) for failure to take registration under commercial or industrial construction service and penalty of ₹ 5000/- was imposed under Section 77(2) for failure to file half yearly return besides the equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals). The appeal was partly allowed by setting aside the penalty of ₹ 5000/- imposed under Section 77(2) of Finance Act, 1994. The demand, interest and other penalties imposed were upheld. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the imposition of penalty. 4. On behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel Ms. Nisha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eement produced by the appellant is not reliable. The failure to take registration under proper category of service also attracts the penal provision under Section 77. That the penalties imposed are reasonable and justified. 6. I have heard the rival submissions. The appellant has furnished before the adjudicating authority the agreement between appellant and the main contractor. It is observed by the original authority that as per the agreement the assessee has a right to collect the service tax demanded by the department from the main contractor and hence the benefit of cum-tax as claimed by assessee cannot be extended. Therefore the contention of the appellant that the failure to pay tax was because the appellant bona fidely believed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
