2015 (2) TMI 49

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on them under section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant No.2 are sub-contractors of the applicant No.1 and have taken various activities of fabrication, installation and commissioning of various projects awarded to the applicant No.1. The applicant No.1 has awarded certain contracts to applicant No.2. In some of the contracts, the service tax element was shown separately and in some of the contracts the service tax liability is shown is mentioned as 0 or may be inclusive of service tax. In some contracts service tax liability was shown separately, based on that the applicant No.2 raising the bill accordingly and paying the service tax. But whe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... [2014 (33) STR 470 (Tri. Del.)]. He further submits that the applicant No.2 has paid a sum of Rs. 64,40,263/- along with interest of Rs. 2,65,786/- and the same may be considered as sufficient for entertaining their appeal. Therefore, he pleaded that the pre-deposit may be granted. 4. Shri Shailesh P. Seth, ld. counsel for the applicant No.1 submits that in this case has penalty has been imposed on the applicant No.1 being a service recipient. Moreover, the penalty has been imposed considering that the applicant was the adviser to the applicant No.2 to advise not to pay the service tax. In fact it is the liability of applicant No.2 to pay the service tax correctly and whereas in the works contract, if the service tax element is shown as....