2015 (6) TMI 697

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellate Tribunal, Chennai was admitted by this Court on the following substantial question of law: "Whether Sections 76 and 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended warrant levy of penalty equal to amount of Service Tax by way of mandatory condition or any discretion is left with the authorities for imposing such penalty." 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellant/assessee is engaged in the business of construction of residential flats for and on behalf of their clients, classifiable as construction of Residential Complex Service . They had neither registered themselves with the Department nor paid Service Tax on the value of the taxable service rendered by them. Hence show cause notice was issued for the purpose o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unal. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding as follows: "I have heard both sides. The finding of the adjudicating authority that the assessee was guilty of suppression remains unchallenged. Once suppression is established, penalty is automatically attracted, in the light of the apex court decision in Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors reported in 2008 (231) ELT.3 (S.C.)]. I, therefore, agree with the finding of the Commissioner that penalty is to be imposed, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal." 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the appellant/assessee is before this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel appearing ....