9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1037X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng services under "Construction of Residential Complex Service." The appellant were providing aforesaid services from April 2010 onwards and applied for registration of Service Tax on 22 April, 2011. Further, ST-3 Return was filed by the appellant for the period from April 2010 to September 2010 after a delay of 334 days and the same for the subsequent half year was filed after a delay of 150 days. During the scrutiny of aforesaid ST-3 returns it appeared to Revenue that there was delay of many months for payment of Service Tax for the period from April 2010 to March 2011. During the scrutiny of said returns it further appeared to Revenue that appellants had claimed abatement without mentioning any serial number of Notification No.01/2006-S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. (v) The penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for short payment of Service Tax as mentioned in para (iii). (vi) The late fee should not be recovered under Rule 7 (C) of Service Tax read with Section 70 of the Act ibid and the penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 for late filing of ST-3 returns. (vii) The penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 77(1)(c) of the Finance Act (Service Tax), 1994 for non submission of list of records as required under Rule 5(2) of Service Tax Rules, 1994." 3. The said Show Cause Notice was adjudicated through Order-In-Original dated 28 March, 2014. The Original Authority p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iii). (v) I impose a late fee of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) and order recovery under Rule 7 (C) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Section 70 of the Act ibid for late filing of ST-3 returns. (vi) I impose a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) upon them under Section 77(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 1994 for non submission of list of records as required under Rule 5(2) of Service Tax Rules, 1994." 4. Aggrieved by the said order appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the said appeal through impugned Order-in-Appeal and did not interfere with the said Order-in-Original dated 28 March, 2014. Aggrieved by the said order appellant is before this Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abatement under said notification and held that appellant had fulfilled all the conditions required for availing the said Notification No.01/2006-ST dated 01 March, 2006. We, further, note that said findings were taken into consideration by this Tribunal for deciding the issue for the period from April 2011 to March 2012. We, therefore, hold that for the period covered by the present appeal appellant was entitled for said abatement. We, therefore, set aside the demand confirmed to the extent of Rs. 7,68,232/- along with interest on the same and equal penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. We, further, note that the C.A. for the appellant did not press for any interference in any other part of the impugned Order-in-Origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
