TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 449
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....viding the services of (a) Trenching and laying of PG cable and allied work for telecom department; (b) Excavation work relating to irrigation, road for clients like PWD, railways and various other clients as a sub-contractor. 2. A show-cause notice was issued wherein a demand of Rs. 23,15,057/- and Rs. 4,51,315/- totaling to Rs. 27,66,370/- was made along with interest and penalties. The show-cause notice was adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner, whereby the demand was reduced to 6,21,493/- and 4,01,798/- was confirmed and also imposed penalties under section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Being aggrieved by the order-in-original the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) in order-in-appeal No. reduced the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l officer, there cannot be any mala fide intention of suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. 4. He further submits that while computing the demand of Rs. 5,27,493/- an amount of Rs. 158/- was wrongly confirmed and the cum-duty benefit was not extended; that after considering both, the demand stand reduced to Rs. 96,163/- for which he submitted a calculation chart. The appellant have admittedly paid the entire amount of service tax along with interest before issuance of show cause notice. For this reason also penalty under Section 78 could not be imposed invoking Section 80. He places reliance on the following judgments. i. Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur - 2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC); ii. Aaren Syn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or are provider of construction service whereas the appellant is providing an independent service of excavation for which they are the main service provider and hence, they are not entitled for the benefit as a sub-contractor. Therefore, we are of the view that the service provided by the appellant chargeable to service tax in their own hand. 7. As regard the quantification challenged by the appellant, they have given the following re-computation: Demand confirmed vide OIA dated 23/07/2013 Rs.5,27,493/- Demand wrongly confirmed Rs.158 Rs.5,27,335/- Remaining Demand Rs.5,27,335/- Demand after applying cum-tax value principle Rs.4,72,472/- Service Tax already appropriated in OIA Rs.2,59,158/- ....