2022 (6) TMI 381

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llant Ms. Tamanna Alam, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDRER Heard the parties. 2. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the appellant M. P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Indore) Limited, is liable to service tax on the amount of penalty (liquidated damages) collected from their contractor. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is registered with the Service T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... roposed demands was confirmed with equal amount of penalty under Section 78 (which was not proposed in the show cause notice). Further, interest was also ordered to be calculated and collected. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who was pleased to dismiss the appeal upholding the order-in-original. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Tree Hotel vs. Commissioner, GST, CE & Customs, Indore -2020 (34) GSTL 220 (Tri. Del.). 7. Learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue relies on the impugned order. 8. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that under the facts and circumstances there is no contract between the appellant and their contractor - to refrain from an act or to tolerate an act or a situation o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X