2017 (3) TMI 727

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... activities are with reference to contract entered into with M/s. FCI Aravali Gypsum & Minerals India Ltd., Jaipur. 2. The dispute in the present case relates to liability of the appellant for service tax in respect of some of these activities carried out, on which full tax liability has not been discharged by them. Proceeding initiated against the appellant concluded in the impugned order, wherein the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the service tax liability of Rs. 50,53,444/- and imposed penalty of equivalent amount under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and further penalty under Section 76 and 77 of the Act. 3. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that originally demand is for tax amount of Rs. 85,88,193/- unde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant as taxable under mining service after 1.6.2007. On the same activities, for the period prior to1.6.2007, the service tax was sought to be confirmed under a different service viz. site formation and clearance. This is not legally tenable. He relied on the various decided cases to support his contention. 6. Ld. AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the appellant did not produce supporting evidence regarding payment of Rs. 50,30,529/-. The Original Authority considered only regular payments made during the relevant time, in the absence of verification of other payments. 7. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 8. On the first issue regarding appellant's liability for tax under....