2015 (11) TMI 1040

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in-original dated 18.11.2011 demand of Rs. 5,64,530/- along with interest was confirmed against the appellant under commercial or industrial construction service and construction of complex service inter alia denying the benefit of 67% abatement under Notification No. 15/2004-ST / 1/2006-ST and penalty was also imposed. 2. Revenue has contended that the respondent had not furnished any document to indicate that cost of construction material was included in the amount charged or same were supplied free of cost by service recipient and therefore the benefit of 67% abatement should not have been granted. It also contested the extension of benefit No. 15/2004-ST on the ground that Commissioner (Appeals) did not ascertain whether conditions o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Bilaspur. As regards extending the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act for setting aside the penalties we find that after allowing the 67% abatement the impugned demand would reduce to about one third of the amount confirmed by the primary adjudicating authority. Further while considering the eligibility of the appellant for the benefit of Section 80 the Commissioner (Appeals) has noted as under: "i) This is a case in the nature of interpretation of law. ii) It is noticed that the appellant has done the work of Municipal Corporation belonging to local government. From the submissions of the appellant it is noticed that he was under bonafide belief that work has been awarded by the local government for allotment of wea....