TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 928
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pectively. Besides, penalty of Rs. 1,66,40,817/- was also imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The break-up of demand raised in the impugned order is as under :- S.No. Serviced Recipient Description of Services Provided Period Covered S. Tax Demand 1. SECL Hiring of HEMM for excavation 21.01.06- 30.06.06 80,66,261/- 2 JPL Transport Services 6,72,143/- 3 JPL Construction of Ash Dyke 25.11.05- 03.06.06 79,02,503/- Total 1,66,40,907/- 2. The ld. Advocate for the appellant submitted that in respect of the demand indicated at Sl. No.1 and 2 in the above table, the appellant had deposited the service tax liability and challenged the impugned order against imposition of penalty only. He further submitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T, Raipur - 2016 (10) TMI 621-CESTAT, New Delhi. 3. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue, reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 5. In relation to the services provided by the appellant to SECL, the matter was under consideration by the Ministry of Coal and Finance and upon confirmation of the position that Service Tax is liable to be paid under the taxable service, SECL has accepted its liability and paid the Service Tax on behalf of the appellant. The said fact has been stated by the adjudication authority in the impugned order at paragraph 4.1. (xiii). Further, with regard to the demand of Service Tax of Rs. 6,72,143/- on transportation service, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y required or necessary for successful completion of Ash Dyke for 4 x 250 MW O.P. Jindal Super Thermal Power Plant". 7. On perusal of the above work order issued in favour of the appellant, it reveals that the construction of the Ash Dyke in the premises of the service receiver was a composite contract, involving supply of goods as well as execution of the assigned task. We also find that the adjudicating authority has recorded the submissions of the appellant vide paragraph 4.1 (xi) that the construction of Ash Dyke was awarded on turnkey basis and the client has deducted work contract tax as per Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Law. However, he has not specifically dealt with the issue raised by the appellant at the time of adjudication pro....