9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 844X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Reddy, Asst. Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned order which confirmed the following demand, interest and penalty:- (i) Rs. 8,80,590/- (Rupees eight lakhs eighty thousands five hundred and ninety only) being the service tax and the CESSes payable thereon on the Management, Maintenance & Repair Services' rendered during the period from 10/2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of Section 78 of the Finance Act,1994 ibid for willful misstatement and suppression of facts; and (vi) Penalty of Rs. 200/- Pere day during which such failure continues or at the rate of 2% of such tax, per month, whichever is higher, starting with the first day after the due date till the date of actual payment of the outstanding amount of service tax, under the provisions of Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Karnataka vide case reported in 2012(26) STR J25(Kar.)]. That Similar view was taken by the same High court in the case of CCE &ST, LTU, Bangalore Vs. Adecco Flexione Workforce Solution Ltd. [2012(26) STR 3 (Kar.)]. 3. The second demand is Rs. 2,09,63,859/- in respect of ECIS rendered by appellant. The appellant challenges this demand raising the ground the main contractor has discharged the ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so as the appellant had paid service tax in regard to MMR services before issuing the show-cause notice, no penalty can be imposed in this regards. Cumulatively, all penalties imposed in the impugned order are unsustainable and liable to be set aside, which we hereby do. The demand and interest of service tax on ECIS is set aside for the reason that the main contractor has discharged the liability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
