9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1037X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 156/2015-CU[DB] - FINAL ORDER NO. 72552 / 2018 - Dated:- 18-10-2018 - Shri Dilip Gupta, President and Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Vineet Rathi (C.A.) Shri Vikas Kashyap (C.A.) for Appellant Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi, Asstt. Commer. (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The Present appeal is directed against Order-In-Appeal No.GZB/EXCUS/000/APP/246/2014-15 dated 28 November, 2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeals-II), Customs Central Excise, Noida. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant were providing services under Construction of Residential Complex Service. The appellant were providing aforesaid services from April 2010 onwards and applied for registratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994. (ii) The penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 for failure to pay service tax amounting to ₹ 2,56,077/- on due date. (iii) The service tax amounting to ₹ 7,68,232/- (Rs.7,45,855/- Service + ₹ 14,918/- Ed. Cess + ₹ 7,459/- H S Cess) (Rs. Seven lacs Sixty eight thousand Two hundred Thirty two only) should not be demanded and recovered from them under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. (iv) The interest as leviable on the above amount in para (iii) should not be recovered from them under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. (v) The penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended. (iii) I impose the interest on the above amount in para (iii) at appropriate rate on them against aforesaid demand leviable on the above amount under the provisions of Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended. (iv) I impose penalty of ₹ 7,68,232/- (Rupees Seven lakhs sixty eight thousand two hundred thirty two only) upon them under the provisions of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for their alleged evasion of Service Tax in contravention of the provisions of Rule 6 the Service Tax Rules, 1994, read with the provisions of Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended, as mentioned in para (iii). (v) I impose a late fee of ₹ 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al deals with the period from April 2010 to March 2011 and on the basis of said two orders they were eligible for abatement for the period covered by present appeal and that once abatement is held to be admissible then the confirmed demand with interest and equal penalty does not sustain. 6. Heard the learned A.R. who has submitted that the said final order dated 15 March, 2016 squarely covers the issue. 7. We have carefully gone through the record of the case, submissions made by both the sides and said Final Order dated 15 March, 2016. We find that the learned Commissioner while passing the said Order-In-Original dated 27 November, 2015 examined all conditions for admissibility of abatement under said notification and held that appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
