TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 660
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant 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., the builders, were discharging service tax on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....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 notice dated 7.6.2013 was issued proposing to demand service tax and interest and to propose penalties under various provisions of law....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld 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 Department has accepted the penalty paid by the appellant under Section 4A and never advised the appellant to pay the penalty for the earlier period under Section 7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 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 amount of service tax of Rs. 5,19,689/- quantified for the period from 1.10.2008 to 7.4.2011 on the ground that the said demand has been confirmed under the proviso to Section 73(1) which attracts suppression of fact. He further submitted that none of the ingredi....