9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On being pointed out the appellant paid the disputed service tax along with interest – invocation of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 – penalty set aside – demand of tax and interest upheld – decided partly in favor of appellant. - ST/85308/16 - A/89188/16/SMB - Dated:- 10-8-2016 - Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri.Darshan Ranavat, CA for appellant Shri. Vikram Kaushik, Asst. Comm. (AR) for respondent ORDER The appellant, M/s.Afcons Infrastructure Ltd., received an amount of ₹ 13.2 crore as mobilization advance in March 2007 for the project Chemplast Cuddalore but had not discharged the service tax liability on the said advance. Out of the amount of ₹ 13.20 crore, the appellant adjusted an amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order-in-original extended the benefit of reduced penalty of 25% of the service tax demanded subject to the payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order-in-appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that there was no suppression of facts. It was argued that though the advance amount was not declared in the ST-3 returns, the appellant themselves disclosed before the audit team that they received the said advance. It was argued that the advance was received in the month of March 2007 but the project actually commenced in the month of July 2007. The learned Counsel argued that at the material time it was not clear whether the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a good case for invoking the provisions of Section 80 as the appellant had demonstrated co-operative attempt and made payment of service tax before issuance of show-cause notice. 4. The learned AR argued that the said amount of advance was not shown in the ST-3 return. He argued that the appellant could have paid the tax in any category at the material time and could have adjusted the same on the later date. He further argued that in the case of suppression, the provisions of Section 73 (3) of the Finance Act, are not applicable. 5. I have gone through the rival submissions. I find that the dispute pertains to the period immediately after February 2007 when levy of service tax on the service components of the works contract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
