TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 480
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Respondent, though received and realized the value of taxable services from M/s. BHEL, by rendering the said services, but failed to discharge the service tax on the amount so received. Consequently, on being pointed out by the Department, they had paid the service tax. Later on, a Show Cause Notice was issued to them on 29.08.2008, proposing appropriation of the amount already paid and imposition of penalty, and recovery of interest. The ld. Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand and appropriated the amount paid towards service tax liability and imposed penalty of Rs. 7,07,029/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994; penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77 of the said Act; and penalty @2% of the service tax per month under Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mentioned about the applicability of service tax, the Respondent had not paid the service tax by observing necessary formalities of registration etc. under the Finance Act, 1994, and the Rules made thereunder. The plea of the Respondent that they were unaware of the provisions of law, cannot be acceptable in view of the specific mention of the liability of service tax under both the Work Orders dated 21.01.2006 and 04.08.2006. The ld. AR also submits that once it is established that the Respondent had suppressed the facts from the knowledge of the Department, penalty is imposable. In support, he has referred to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills, 2009 (238) ELT 3(SC). ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-nine thousand eight hundred and twenty-nine). The contract price is inclusive of taxes, duties etc. except the service tax including educational cess, which BHEL shall reimburse as per tender provision." 8. In view of the aforesaid categorical stipulations in the respective Work Orders, there is no room for the Respondent to plead that they were not aware of the applicability of service tax to the services rendered by them. In this scenario, the setting aside of the penalty by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) without recording reasons and analyzing the facts, in my opinion, is unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned Order is set aside. I find that the ld. Adjudicating Authority has imposed penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Fin....