2025 (3) TMI 125

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... do an act between the parties hence the issue is decided in favour of the appellant. The other issues related to invocation of extended period of limitation, penalty and interest are not required to be gone into as the issued on merits stands decided in favour of the appellant. The impugned order deserves to be set aside - The appeal is, accordingly allowed.
HON'BLE MS. BINU TAMTA , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON'BLE SHRI P. V. SUBBA RAO , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri Kunal Agarwal , Advocate for the Appellant Shri Rajeev Kapoor , Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER BINU TAMTA The impugned order O-I-O No. JAI-EXCUS-000-COM-03-19-20 dated 30.04.2019 has confirmed the demand made in the show cause notice for the period .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... under: (i) South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax 2020 (12) TMI 912 - CESTAT New Delhi (ii) Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. 2023 (8) TMI 606 - SC Order (iii) MP Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST & CE, Bhopal 2021 (46) GSTL 409 (Tri.-Del.) (iv) Rajcomp Info Service Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur 2022 (65) GSTL 103 (Tri.-Del.)   (v) Dy. GM (Finance), BHEL Vs. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal 2022 (9) TMI 1005 - CESTAT New Delhi (vi) Steel Authority of India Ltd., Salem Vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Salem 2021 (7) TMI 1092 - CESTAT Chennai (vii) Nor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ses are in the nature of providing a safeguard to the commercial interest of the appellant and it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that recovering any sum by invoking the penalty clauses is the reason behind the execution of the contract for an agreed consideration. It is not the intention of the appellant to impose any penalty upon the other party nor is it the intention of the other party to get penalized. 43. It is, therefore, not possible to sustain the view taken by the Principal Commissioner that penalty amount, forfeiture of earnest money deposit and liquidated damages have been received by the appellant towards "consideration" for "tolerating an act" leviable to service tax under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act." .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X