2014 (9) TMI 782

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Act 1994 were also imposed. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: The appellants entered into an agreement with Chhattisgarh Housing Board for executing the work of construction of various categories of houses. During investigation by the DGCEI, it was observed that the appellants provided the service of/in relation to construction of various residential houses to their client, which falls under the taxable category of Construction of complex service. They had also received a total amount of Rs. 16,49,20,743/- from their client during the period from 02.07.2005 to 16.08.2007 on which they were liable to pay service tax amounting to Rs. 62,46,844/- after allowing abatement of 67% from the gross value of taxable service recovered ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....art. So they are not liable to penalties and are eligible for the benefit of Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 also. 5. The Ld. AR conceded that there is no evidence of any mala fide on the part of the appellants. 6. We have considered the submissions. It is seen that the appellants have not contested the demand and on being pointed out, they took immediate steps to deposit the impugned service tax by contacting the Chhattisgarh Housing Board for reimbursement of the service tax. It is also a fact that as the client was Chhattisgarh Housing Board, it was not a case where the appellants could have indulged in black money transactions with regard to the service rendered. The appellants have stressed that that the amount paid by them more ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t; hence, penalty under Section 77 is also impossible. Thus, it is evident that there is no discussion/analysis with regard to the allegation of suppression and the adjudicating authority merely jumps to the conclusion that there is suppression of facts. Obviously this is not sufficient to sustain the allegation of suppression of facts. Indeed in para 8.2 of the Order-in-Original, I find that the Commissioner has stated as under:                   8.2. Nevertheless, the penalties under section 76 and 78 are not impossible simultaneously in view of decision of CESTAT in the case of The Financers v. CCE, Jaipur -2007 (8) STR 7 and Opus Media & Entertain....