9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Mudvel, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The brief facts of the matter are that the appellant are engaged in the construction service under the category of finishing and painting of various projects and buildings. The appellant has regularly been filing their ST-3 returns and have also been paying service tax after availing the benefit of Notification No. 01/2006-ST dated 01.03.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been adjudicated vide impugned order-in-original dated 28.03.2014 where-under all the charges as proposed in the show cause notice have been confirmed. 2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that so far as the demand on merit is concerned, they agree with the point of view taken by the department. However, it was argued that the show cause notice has been issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clared by them. The claim of 60% abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST was availed in normal course as it was available for all the construction services 3. We have also heard the learned AR who has reiterated the findings of the order-in-original. 4. Having heard both the sides and on perusal of record of the appeal, we find that the appellant has regularly been filing ST-3 returns. Learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "Construction Services in respect of Commercial or Industrial Buildings and Civil Structures' (ii) mentioned at category of service is mentioned "Construction of RES. Complex' and they never mentioned in the ST-3 return that their firm is providing painting service and therefore they suppress the facts to the department and therefore the case laws relied upon by them is not squarely appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of fraud, mis-statement or suppression of facts etc. with an intent to evade service tax are not present in the matter therefore, we are of the view that penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is not imposable in this case. Accordingly, the penalty imposed in the impugned order-in-original under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 against the appellant is set-aside. 7. In view of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
