9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onstruction activity of residential buildings of more than 12 units from 2012 onwards but had not registered and had not paid any service tax. The work of construction was sub-contracted and the assessee had collected amounts from the prospective buyers. After allowing abatement of 75% as per Notification No.29/2010-ST dt. 22/06/2010 and threshold exemption, the amount of Rs. 47,64,327/- was taxable income for the period 2011-12 to 2014-15. Further they had also provided service under renting of immovable property service during the period 01/07/2012 to 30/09/2014 and received consideration of Rs. 7,00,903/-. Department issued a notice on 20/01/2016 demanding Rs. 6,67,891/- along with interest and penalty. The assessee also claimed the cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h intent to evade the tax. He further submitted that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by various decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. CCE&ST, LTU, Bangalore Vs. Adecco Flexione Workforce [2012(26) STR 6 (Kar.)] ii. CCE, Nagpur Vs. Galaxy Construction P. Ltd. [2017(48) STR 37 (Bom.)] iii. Krishna HT Vs. CCE, Mysuru [2018-TIOL-1819-CESTAT-BANG] iv. TV Ismail Haji & Co. Vs. CCE&ST [2017(5) TMI 766-CESTAT, Bangalore] 4.2. He further submitted that penalty of Rs. 1,40,000/- under Rule 7c of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Section 70 of the Act has wrongly been imposed as the said Rule is not applicable in the present case bec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of the appellant is squarely covered by Section 73(3) of the Finance Act because after the payment of service tax along with interest before issuance of show-cause notice, he informed the authorities for not issuing the show-cause notice. Further the decisions relied upon by the appellant are squarely applicable in the present case and therefore following the ratio of the said decisions, I am of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal of the appellant. Therefore by following the ratio of the above cited decision, I hold that appellants are not liable to pay the penalty under Section 78, which is set aside. As far as, penalty under Rule 7c read with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
