2017 (11) TMI 1404

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or payment of service tax. After completion of certain inquiry, the Department initiated proceedings against the appellant/assessee to demand and recover service tax not paid by the appellant/assessee in respect of 26 contracts executed by them. These are essentially contracts related construction buildings for various clients either for commercial or residential purposes. The case was adjudicated by the Original Authority, who confirmed service tax liability of Rs. 30,09,973/- along with penalties under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The appellant /assessee is aggrieved by the above order only to the limited extent on two points viz. :- (a) They have paid service tax of Rs. 15,14,220/-, prior to issue of show ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellant/assessee. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 6. On the points raised by the appellant/assessee in their appeal, we note that they are not contesting the tax liability as confirmed by the Original Authority except for exclusion of the value of the free supply materials while arriving at the gross value for tax purposes. The Original Authority held that since these are composite works contract in terms of Rule 3 of Composition Scheme, the gross value should be considered for such composition as concessional rate is available only when the gross value is taken. In this connection, we note that the appellant/assessee relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. - 201....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e submitted by the appellant/assessee, such exclusion is to be considered and allowed. 8. On the second point raised by the assessee/appellant regarding the penalty, we note that the tax liability on the composite works contract was discharged wherever liable prior to issue of show cause notice and as such, the proceedings would have been concluded. However, since the issue involved was with reference to multiple contracts of different nature, the case was examined and detailed order was passed by the Original Authority, accepting some of the contention of the appellant and rejecting the others. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that this is a fit case for waiver of penalty by invoking Section 80. Accordingly, p....