9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R.S. Roychoudhary And C.L. Dangi, Advocates for the appellant. Shri R.K. Manjhi, Authorised Representative for the respondent. ORDER ANIL CHOUDHARY: The appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal against charging of service tax on the amount of penalty deducted by the principal from their bills and also for charging of service tax on the work relating to road construction done for M/s.Bhagwat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount of TDS (Income Tax) deducted by the principal from the amount approved or passed on their bills. The appellant accepted the objection of the Revenue, as is evident from the compliance record in the Audit Note and had deposited the service tax on TDS for the period April, 2006 to Sept. 2010 along with interest. For the period subsequent to 30.09.2010 also, the appellant admittedly depos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngineers & Contractor, Bhopal are not liable for service tax and accordingly, reduced amount of Rs. 19,27,479/- was confirmed towards being tax on penalty deducted and security deposit as well as road construction work for Bhagwati Construction. Further, penalty was also imposed under Section 76 and Section 78 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contract between the parties, and the appellant is not entitled to receive the same, at any further point of time, in such case, the amount of consideration under Section 67 of the Act stands ipso facto reduced. Accordingly, we hold that on such penalty, no service tax is exigible or chargeable. Accordingly, the demand on this account is set aside. 8. So far as the construction of road done ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
