TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 660
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e facts of the present case are that the appellant is a proprietary concern operating as a civil contractor and is engaged in the activity of construction of complexes, in and around the city of Mangalore. The appellant undertook the contracts of construction of buildings mainly for one M/s. Vishwas Bawa Builders and for M/s. Battahithalu Enterprises; and M/s. Santosh Kuteera, apart from some small works for individual residential buildings. Since the builders for whom the appellant was carrying on the construction of buildings were paying service tax, the appellant was under the bona fide impression that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax since his activity was in the nature of subcontract and that the main contractor viz., th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 Rs,4,86,716/- Rs.1,03,033/- - Rs.5,89,749/- 2 16/27.7.2012 Rs.6,60,369/- Rs. 80,158/- Rs.1,32,709/- Rs.8,73,236/- 3 11/10.8.2012 - Rs.6,908/- Rs.4,603/- Rs.11,511/- 4 244/25.3.2013 Rs.9,18,923/- Rs.2,09,182/- Rs.1,24,190/- Rs.12,52,295/- 5 4/12.4.2013 - Rs.438/- Rs.8,512/- Rs.8,950/- Total Rs.20,66,008/- Rs.3,99,719/- Rs.2,70,014/- Rs.27,35,741/- The appellant vide letter dated 17.4.2013 intimated the Department about the payments made by him towards service tax, interest and penalty and requested for closure of the proceedings under the provisions of Section 73(4A) of the Finance Act, 1994. On these allegations a show-cause not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....40,365/- He further submitted that once the appellant has paid the entire service tax, interest and 1% penalty in terms of Section 73(4A), the Department should not have issued the show-cause notice and the proceedings should have been concluded. He further submitted that the Commissioner in the impugned order has allowed closure of proceedings only for the period 8.4.2011 to 31.3.2012 by holding that the said proviso is only prospective and accordingly, he has held that no penalties are leviable for this period. He has also appropriated the part of the total amount paid by the appellant as 1% penalty for this purpose and the balance has been appropriated for penalty imposed separately under Section 78. He further submitted that the Dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ESTAT Bangalore • Om Vishnu Constructions Vs. CCE: 2017 (7) TMI 944- CESTAT Bangalore • T.V. Ismail Haji & Co Vs. CCE: 2017 (5) TMI 766 CESTAT Bangalore • Praxair India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2017 (7) TMI 27 CESTAT Bangalore. • Bhoruka Aluminium Limited Vs. CCE: 2017 (51) STR 418 (Tri.-Bang.) • Aar Kay Industries Vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I: 2016 (344) ELT 1104 (Tri.-Chan.) • CCE Vs. Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd.: 2012 (26) STR 3 (Kar.) • CCE Vs. Manipal County: 2011 (9) TMI 1094 Karnataka High Court He further submitted that penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act is unsustainable as the Commissioner has imposed penalty equal to the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd that the appellant has paid the service tax along with interest and also paid 1% penalty and requested the department for closure of the proceedings but the department did not close the proceedings and proceeded to issue the show-cause notice and by passing the impugned order imposed various penalties. Further, I also find that the Commissioner has allowed the closure of the proceedings only for the period 8.4.2011 t 31.3.2012 by holding that the said proviso is only prospective and also held that no penalties are imposable for this period. Further, I also find that this Tribunal in the case of SS Service providers cited supra has held that provisions of Section 73(4A) will be applicable even for the period prior to the issuance of Show-....