2017 (11) TMI 1447

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the revenue against the impugned order dated 04.09.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) whereby the Commissioner (Appeal) has set aside the penalty under section 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the respondents are engaged in the business of construction of commercial buildings. On verification of documents by the department, it was noticed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....de the impugned order observed that the original authority denied the benefit of abatement since the value for computation of tax has been taken after excluding the cost of land and had the appellant been the owner of the land and rendered the services on its own land for the ultimate benefit of the customer on completion, the liability of tax would have risen only after 01.07.2010 and that having....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., I proceed to decide the appeal of the revenue on the basis of available record and the assistance rendered by the AR. The Learned AR for the revenue submitted that the impugned order dropping the penalty under section 77 and 78 is not sustainable in law. He further submitted that the assessee has suppressed the material facts from the department and it is only during the search, seizure and veri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant para 10, 11 and 12 of the impugned order which is reproduced herein below: 10. The original authority has denied the benefit of abatement since the value for computation of tax has been taken after excluding the cost of land. Had the appellant been the owner of the land and rendered the service on its own land for the ultimate benefit of the customer on completion, the liability to tax would ....