2017 (3) TMI 1103

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the adjudication order and the balance amount of tax alongwith interest was paid immediately after adjudication of the dispute. The authorities below have not specifically alleged/ concluded regarding the involvement of the appellant in any fraudulent activities with intent to defraud the Government Revenue. It is not the case of revenue that the appellant recovered the service tax amount from .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ow Cause proceedings, which culminated in the adjudication order dated 27.01.2004 in confirming the service tax demand of ₹ 7,52,458/-. Besides, penalties were imposed under Section 76,77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 10.02.2016 has upheld the adjudged demand. Hence, the present appeal is before the Tribunal. 2. Th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... efit of Section 80 ibid for non-imposition of penalties. 3. Ld. DR, on the other hand, reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. He further submits that the fact of payment of service tax on execution of the contract as per the work order was known to the appellant in the year 2008 through the letter of the Chief Engineer, MPPTCL, Jabalpur. Since the appellant did not get itslef r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X