2016 (12) TMI 1396

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pondent ORDER This appeal has been filed by Revenue against order-in-appeal no: NSK-EXCUS-000-APP-240-13-14 dated 22nd August 2013 of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nashik in which M/s Sharad N Pawar, who is a provider of 'works contract service', has been held liable to pay service tax of Rs. 20,48,456/- along with interest besides being imposed with penalty of Rs. 20,48,45 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sentative placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai [2015-TIOL-04-SC-ST]. A number of other decisions on similar lines were also cited by the Learned Authorised Representative. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the proceedings, even though related to the period prior to May 2008, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n both classification as well as on computation of taxable value of the service in these categories and the fact that appellant did not collect service tax from the recipients of the service, it would appear that the impugned order has not erred in dropping the penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 5. In view of the above, there is no requirement for interference with the findings in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X