9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we find no justifiable reason for invoking provisions of section 80 so as to set aside the penalty. However, we take note of the appellants submission that amount of around ₹ 45 lakh deposited by them for the year 2007-2008 is without availing the benefit of abatement in terms of Notification No. 15/2004. As we have already observed that the benefit of said notification would be available to the assessee even if it has received free supply items from his clients, we are of the view that appellants duty liability is required to be requantified in terms of law declared by the Larger Bench in the case of Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. [2013 (9) TMI 294 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)] - Matter remanded back. - Decided partly in favor of assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ahclon Builders Developments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE ST, Surat I [2016 (32) STR 245 (Tri-Del)]. We find that the issue on the said point is no longer res integra. As such, the Revenue's stand and the confirmation of demand on the said count cannot be upheld 3. The second limb of the demand pertains to the period 2007-2008. It is undisputed fact on record, admitted by the appellant himself that during the said period, no service tax returns were filed and no service tax was paid. The same was pointed out by the Revenue vide their letter dated 25.4.08 and it is only thereafter the appellant deposited the service tax along with interest. As per the appellant, the said service tax was not deposited as their customer had no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r by the learned advocate. Admittedly, the appellant was registered with the Service Tax department and was duly discharging its service tax for the previous financial years and as such, was aware of the his legal obligation to discharge the service tax in respect of construction activities undertaken by him. Non-receipt of amount of service tax from his client cannot be adopted as a excuse for non-payment of service tax to the exchequer when the liability lies heavily on the appellant himself. As such, we find no justifiable reason for invoking provisions of section 80 so as to set aside the penalty. However, we take note of the appellants submission that amount of around ₹ 45 lakh deposited by them for the year 2007-2008 is wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
