9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee-appellant that in calculating the duty on the gross taxable value, erroneously certain amount received as hand loans has been included. Revenue has not produced any contrary evidence to be rebut the said claim - Revenue's appeal being devoid of merit is set aside. - Appeal No. ST/86351/2015, ST/86342/2015 - A/87412-87413/2018 - Dated:- 16-7-2018 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) Shri Dilip Shinde, Asstt. Commr. (A.R.) for Revenue In person for respondent-assesse ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra These appeals are filed by Revenue as well as the assessee against order-in-appeal No. NGP/EXCUS/000/APP/ 311/14-15 dt. 11.3.2015 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y for verification of the said claim and to re-determine the tax liability and penalty accordingly. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee as well as Revenue are in appeal. 3. Ld. AR for the Revenue submits that during the period i.e. April 2008 to March 2013 though they have rendered service under the category of works contract service but had not paid service tax nor filed ST-3 returns due to confusion and applicability of service tax to construction industry. It is his contention that out of the total confirmed service tax demand of ₹ 9,04,004/-. They have already deposited service tax of ₹ 8,53,418/- and paid interest of ₹ 1,07,785/- before commencement of the investigation. It is his contention that also they ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. We do not find any reason to interfere with the said order, inasmuch as admittedly the appellant had failed to discharge service tax nor filed any intimation with the department about rendering of such services. However, the assessee-Appellant is entitled to discharge 25% of the quantum of penalty that in accordance with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, subject to fulfillment of conditions laid down there under. 6. Further, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue, assailing the order of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), for remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to re-compute the liability. The Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has remanded the matter to re- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
