2016 (10) TMI 618

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct, 1994. 2.  The fact of the case is that the appellant engaged in the 'construction of complex' services which became taxable w.e.f.16.6.2005, however the appellant did not pay the service tax in time for the period July 2010 to June 2012.  The appellant on their own applied for the registration on 5.1.2012 and suo moto computed the service tax liability for the aforesaid period and started paying service tax.  The appellant paid the entire amount of  service tax of Rs. 26,72,756/- and interest of Rs. 4,53,658/- before issuance of show cause notice.  The appellant also filed return though belatedly, therefore they also paid the late fees for delayed filing of returns.  Subsequently, the show cause notice w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant on their own computed the service tax and paid the same along with interest before issuance of show cause notice. Therefore for this reason also the penalties should not have been imposed as held in the following judgments: (i)  Neev Sai Developers Vs.Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I 2014-T IOL-2197-CESTAT-MUM (ii)  C.C.E. & S.T., LTU, Bangalore Vs. Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd. 2012 (26) S.T.R. 3 (Kar.) (iii)  M/s. Metro Automobiles Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Daman 2013-TIOL-886-CESTAT-AHM He submits that since the levy of service tax was not free from doubt, it was a bona fide belief of the appellant that the service tax is not leviable, hence the appellant could not pay the service....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r. of Service Tax, Mumbai Vs. Gamma Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. 2006 (4) S.T.R. 591 (Tri.-Mumbai). 4.  On the other hand, Shri Sanjeev Nair, Ld. Examiner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order.  He submits that the argument of the Ld. Counsel that the levy of service tax was under dispute and it was pending in the various court, the appellant has entertained the bonafide belief for non-payment of service tax is not correct for the reason that the scope of taxable service on  construction of complex was expanded on 1.7.2010, by which all the doubts on the taxability of services were cleared. Therefore the appellant should have paid the amount immediately after 1.7.2010, which the a....