9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. Among others, providing architects services, construction services in respect of commercial or industrial building and civil structures, work contract services. In the course of investigation by the Anti-Evasion Branch, it appeared that the appellant was not paying service tax on the activities of industrial and commercial construction for providing such services in Uttrakhand and as well as in New Delhi. They had neither discharged the service tax liability properly nor filed their ST-3 returns. The appellant was registered both under Dehradun Division as well as with Delhi Service Tax Commissionerate. It further appeared on investigation that the appellant had not paid service tax on the value of F0C (Free of Charge) materials supplie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th, whichever is higher. Further penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed under section 77 of the Act. The ld. Commissioner refrained from imposing penalty under Section 78 of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant assessee is in appeal on the ground that imposition of penalty under section 76 of Rs. 45,64,000/- (approximately) is bad and not sustainable and further the same is also disproportionate. There is no finding regarding deliberate attempt for not making the payment of service tax with intention to evade the payment of tax. There being reasonable cause for not depositing the tax in time, the appellant is entitled to the benefit as provided under Section 80 and the penalty was fit to be dropped. It is further urged that the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax under the classification CICS is bad. However the appellant does not want to contest the liability of service tax on the issue of classification. It is further admitted fact that they have deposited the service tax after passing of the impugned order in original. Under such facts and circumstances the learned Counsel urges that the penalty under Section 76 is fit to be deleted. 6. The Revenue is in appeal on the ground that the learned Commissioner have erred in holding that the construction of Maharaja Agarsen Hospital at Delhi, is not for commercial purpose and thus construction of the hospital was outside the purview of the definition of CICS and further erred in dropping the demand on this issue. No exemption from service tax is ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... work done, wherein material component is involved along the service component, being a composite contract, the work is rightly classifiable under the category 'works contract' as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE Kerala Vs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC). The learned Counsel has argued that as the appellant assessee, who is also registered under the category of 'works contract' is not challenging the demand of service tax and have also deposited the same, the penalty levied is fit to be set aside. Further, it is admitted fact as noted in the impugned order, that the appellant assessee suffered huge loss, as the debtors (contactees) refused to make payment and the appellant had to file various arbitration proceedings for ge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
