9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Penalty - Held that: - since the issue involves interpretation of N/N. 01/2006-ST dated 01/03/2006, the benefit of Section 80 of the Act should be extended for non-imposition of penalties under various provisions of the Act - penalties set aside. Appeal allowed in part. - ST/60452/2013-[DB] - ST/A/58569/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 19-12-2017 - Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Ms. Rinki Arora, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Sanjay Jain, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per. S. K. Mohanty 1. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is registered with Service Tax Department for providing the taxable service under the category of Erection, Commissioning Installation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmits that the proceedings initiated by the Department is barred by limitation of time, in as much as, the period involved is from June, 2006 to July, 2008; whereas, the show cause notice was issued on 21.12.2010, which is beyond the normal period of limitation, provided under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue submits that in order to claim the benefit under Notification dated 01/03/2006, both the conditions should be fulfilled i.e. supply of plant, machinery and equipment and erection commissioning and installation of those capital items. Thus, he submits that in this case, since the appellant had not supplied any plant and machinery, the condition of the Notification has no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lue of the plant, machinery, equipment, structures, parts and any other material sold by the commissioning and installation agency, during the course of providing erection, commissioning or installation service. 33 6. On perusal of the above notification, it reveals that in order to get the benefit of abatement, both the conditions should be fulfilled by the service provider i.e. supply of plant, machinery etc. and erection commissioning or installation of those plant/ machinery etc. In this case, since the admitted fact is that the appellant had not supplied plant, machinery equipment etc. and only undertook the job of erection commissioning and installation of the capital items installed in the factory o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
