2007 (12) TMI 162

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in providing services of 'commercial or industrial construction'. The Service tax was introduced on 10-9-2004. The appellant entered into an agreement with M/s. Allen Career Institute, Kota dated 2nd June, 2004 for construction. The appellant received th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. 3. The ld. Advocate submits that the appellants deposited the tax along with interest before the issue of the show cause notice and, therefore, the imposition of penalty is unwarranted. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Union of India v. T.P.L. Industries Ltd. reported in 2007 (214) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the appellant did not obtain registration. 5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 provides penalty for suppressing the value of taxable services. It is seen that the appellant entered into an agreement dated 2nd June, 2004 with M/s. Allen Carrier Institute, Kota for construction. The appellant obtained registration on 3rd A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X