2011 (5) TMI 32

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Sukhdev Sharma for the Appellant. ORDER Adarsh Kumar Goel, Acting Chief Justice. - This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, 'the Act') against order dated 12-8-2010, Annexure A-4, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi claiming following questions of law :-   &n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e services rendered during 1-7-2003 to 30-9-2006. Show-cause notice was issued proposing to recover the service tax and levy penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand with interest and also levied penalty under sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Appellate Authority partly allowed the appeal but upheld the demand of levy of penalty. On further appeal, the Tribunal set a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e the service tax. However, the appellant's contention is that in addition to erection, commissioning and installation, they were also undertaking the work relating to fabrication and dismantling, on which they were not paying any service tax as according to them, service tax was not payable on the charges for fabrication and dismantling. On going through the records, I find the substance in t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....her in the circumstances of this case, the penal provisions of section 78 are invokable." 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Only contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that penalty under section 78 of the Act should not have been interfered with as the assessee was guilty of mis-declaration of value of taxable service with intent to evade the service tax. 5. ....