2017 (9) TMI 1001

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... demand and reduced same to Rs. 9,38,535/-. In addition to the demand of Rs. 9,38,535/-, demand of interest was also raised under Section 75 and the amount already paid of Rs. 2,35,514/- was appropriated. The penalties under sections 76, 77 and 78 were also imposed. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who reduced the penalty to Rs. 4,99,912/- under Section 76 and 78 on the ground that this amount of Service Tax was paid under usual course of regular payment of Service Tax. However, remaining part of the Order-in-Original was upheld. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal, the appellant is before us. 2. Shri P. V. Sadavarte, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not sustain. 2.2 He further submits that if at all any demand arise, the penalty should not have been imposed for the reason that the appellant paid the entire Service Tax demand along with interest. For this reason, penalty under Sections 76 and 78 will not sustain. 3.  Shri B.K. lyer, learned Supdt. (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4.  We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. We find that it is apparent on record that the construction service provided by the appellant is with material and they have also paid the VAT tax on works contract service. They have taken the registration under Works Contract on 1.7.2008 which ha....