2016 (6) TMI 777

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....led by the appellant. 2. The fact of the case is that the appellant is engaged in providing the construction service in respect of Commercial or Industrial Building and Civil Structure, Construction of Residential Complex and Works Contract Service. Based on the intelligence that the appellant neither obtained service tax registration nor discharged service tax liability for the services undertaken. Investigation initiated and on completion of investigation, show cause notice dated 8/6/2011 was issued proposing recovery of service tax of Rs. 13,57,105/- along with interest of Rs. 6,47,575/- and imposition of penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.  In the adjudication service tax and interest demand were confir....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....which is before issuance of show cause notice, the case is covered under Section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994 accordingly they are entitle for waiver of penalty imposed under Section 76. He alternatively submits that since the appellant had bonafide belief as discussed above regarding the non payment of service tax and they have discharged service tax without contesting the same alongwith interest and the transaction of services were recorded in the books of accounts. They are able to show reasonable cause for non payment of service tax at the relevant time.  Therefore penalty imposed under Section 76 deserves to be waived invoking Section 80. He also submits that Section 78 penalty is imposed, assessee has opted to pay 25% of duty as pe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....levy of service tax on their service, therefore case is not covered under Section 73(3) in terms of sub section 4 of Section 73. She further submits that simultaneous penalty under Section 76 and 78 are imposable as held in the following judgments: (a) Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. CST[2015-TIOL-04-SC- (b) Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Krishna Poduval[2006(1) S.T.R. 185(Ker)] (c) Bajaj Travels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax[2012(25) S.T.R. 417(Del.)] She further submits that in entire appeal of the appellant, they made ground that penalty under Section 76 and 78 cannot be imposed simultaneously. However they have not sought waiver of penalty invoking Section 80, for that reason penal....