9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oint Commissioner (AR), for respondent Per: Ramesh Nair The appellant are engaged in Construction of Residential Complex, however they were not paying service tax in respect of such activity. Inquiry was initiated by the officer of anti evasion section of central Excise Pune on 27-9- 2011, which revealed that though they obtained service tax registration on 4-8-2010 but did not pay service tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riate interest. Appellant also filed ST-3 returns. He submits that against final order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted appeal which is marked as Civil Appeal No. 9313/2004. Therefore considering the background that the entire industry was waiting for the outcome of the challenge to levy of service tax on construction of residential complex, there is bonafide be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 067/17/STB dated 16.6.2017; viii) Serene Developers vs. CCE, Pune-I - Order No. A/86832/17/STB dated 31.3.2017. 3. On the other hand, Shri. M.K. Sarangi, Ld. Addl. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 5. The limited issue to be decided by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of residential complex that penalty should not be imposed. Accordingly considering various judgments by this Tribunal cited by the Ld. C.A. and considering the fact that matter was under litigation before Hon'ble Bombay High Court, appellant made out fit case of waiver of penalties invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, we set aside penalties under Section 77 and 78 imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
