TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1369
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the work orders issued by M/s Jaya Jyothi Cements Pvt. Ltd. The appellants were registered with the service tax department under the category of work contract services w.e.f. 30.07.2010. On intelligence gathered by the Anti Evasion Wing, verification of records of the appellant was conducted and it was found that appellant has not discharged service tax liability in respect of works provided for M/s Jaya Jyothi Cements Pvt. Ltd. (JJC). A Show Cause Notice was issued covering the period 06/2009 to 08/2010 and 09/2010 to 03/2011 raising demand of Rs. 9,72,649/and Rs. 5,96,349/- respectively. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of service tax along with interest and in respect of the period covered for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to set aside penalty imposed under Section 78 arid Section 76. It is argued by him, that the appellant failed to discharge the service tax only for the reason that payments were not received from M/s. Jaya Jyothi Cements Pvt. Ltd. He relied upon the Final Order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Sh. B. V. Subba Reddy, Final Order No. A/30307/2016 dated 24.03.2016, the judgments laid in KNR Contractors Vs. CCE, Tirupati [2011(21) STR 436 (Tri.- Bang)] and Abyss (The Hutch Shop) Vs. CST Ahmedabad [2013 (39) STR 125 (Tri. -Ahmd.)]. The Ld. Counsel for appellant pleaded that the benefit of Section 80 may be invoked in the present case to waive the penalties imposed. 4. On behalf of the respondent, the ld. AR, Sh. P.S. Reddy reiterated the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tax benefit is extended, the total demand for the two periods which is Rs. 15,68,989/- will be reduced by Rs. 14,22,746/-. The Ld. ARI has also fairly conceded to this issue put forward by the appellant. However, for verification and extending the cum tax benefit the same requires to be remanded to the adjudicating authority, which I hear by do. 6. The Ld. Counsel has put forward arguments with regard to the penalties imposed also. He has relied upon the Final Order passed by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. B.V. Subba Reddy, wherein, the assesee had provided services to the very same service recipient M/s. Jaya Jyothi Cements Pvt. Ltd., (JJC) It is brought from the facts of the said Final Order that M/s. JJC delayed making payments to th....