9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1049X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ausif Ali, G.M (Appellant No.1), Shri S. Gokarnesan, Advocate (Appellant No.2) For the Appellant Shri S. Nagalingam (AC), A.R For the Respondent ORDER Per: Madhu Mohan Damodhar Both these appeals being related on the same issue, although emanating from different impugned orders, are being taken up together for disposal. 2. The facts of the case are that appellant in Appeal No. ST/47/2008 name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide impugned order dt. 10.12.2007 confirmed the proposals in the SCN and also imposed equal penalties under Section 78 ibid along with penalties under Section 76 & 77 ibid. Hence this appeal. 3. In respect of Appeal ST/172/2008, appellant M/s. Anchor Ceramic Co.Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to "Anchor" for the sake of brevity), were sub-contractors for M/s.Taher Ali Industries and Projects ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. In adjudication, original authority vide impugned order dt. 07.05.2008 while extending cum duty benefit, however confirmed service tax liability of Rs. 71,27,204/-along with interest thereon, equal penalty under Section 78 ibid and also penalties under Section 76 & 77 ibid. Aggrieved, appellant has preferred this appeal. 4 When both the appeals came up for hearing, on behalf of appellant Taher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the department, supports the adjudication orders. 7. Heard both sides and gone through the facts of the case. 8. The matter is no longer res integra. Composite services of the genre provided by the appellant herein prior to 1.6.2007 would fall under the ambit of 'works contract service'. The contention of the appellant that the said services would not be leviable under service tax pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
