2016 (10) TMI 1097

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Act. 2. The appellant-assessee is a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of construction of commercial and residential complexes. During the relevant assessment years, the appellant-assessee had made the construction for M/s. Sanvijay Rolling and Engineering, M/s. Sheshrao Wankhede Soot Girni and the Nagpur Improvement Trust and according to the respondent, the appellant was liable to pay the service tax of Rs. 36,54,460/-, Rs. 1,24,862/- and Rs. 14,90,644/- towards the work undertaken for the aforesaid entities, respectively. It is not in dispute that even before the show cause notice was served on the appellant-assessee under ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he claim of the appellant was not accepted, the appellant preferred the appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, by the order dated 9-7-2015 partly allowed the appeal. 3. Shri Khapre, the learned Counsel for the appellant-assessee submitted that the order of the Tribunal is extremely cryptic and the grounds raised by the appellant before the Tribunal are not considered by the Tribunal while deciding the appeal. The learned Counsel took this Court through the memorandum of appeal filed before the Tribunal and the grounds raised therein. It is submitted that though specific ground was raised in regard to the improper issuance of the show cause notice in regard to the amount of Rs. 36,54,460/-, as the said amount was paid even before....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed that it appears from the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal before the Tribunal, that some of the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal were not considered by the Tribunal. It is stated that the appellant cannot make a grievance about the non-consideration by the Tribunal in regard to the execution of the agreements between the Nagpur Improvement Trust and the appellant in respect of construction of complexes for the Nagpur Improvement Trust before the provision, imposing the liability, was brought into force as the said point was not urged on behalf of the appellant before the Tribunal and the same was also not raised in the memorandum of appeal. It is stated that an appropriate order may be passed, in the circumstances of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cogent reasons are recorded by the Tribunal while observing that the penalty could not have been imposed under Section 76 of the Act and could have been imposed under the provisions of Sections 77 and 78 of the Act. None of the grounds raised by the appellant in the appeal, except the ground in regard to the imposition of penalty was considered by the Tribunal. Since the order of the Tribunal is a cryptic and not a reasoned one, it would be necessary to remand the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on the appeal filed by the assessee, in accordance with law. Since the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision, it would be necessary in the interest of....