TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1213
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there is no suppression of fact on the part of the appellants with intent to evade payment of Service Tax. The appellants have not paid the Service Tax on due date due to the reason that the constitutional validity of levy of Service Tax on the Construction of Residential Complex was subjudice before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry Vs. Union of India - 2012 (25) STR 305 (Bom.), therefore the appellants had bonafide belief that Service Tax is not payable on such services therefore demand for extended period cannot be confirmed. He further submits that the Adjudicating Authority imposed the penalties under Section 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. He further submits that the issue wheth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of Central Excise, Mumbai-II Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. - 2017 (347) ELT 229 (Bom.) (ix) Kalbhor Construction Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I 2016 (45) - STR 338 (Tri.-Mumbai) (x) Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore Vs. Motor World - 2012 (27) STR 225 (Kar.) 3. Shri M.P. Damle, Learned Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) and Shri B. Kumar Iyer, Learned Superintendent (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that there was no dispute of levy w.e.f. 01.07.2010 as they themselves admitted that they were not paying the Service Tax due to issue of levy Service Tax on the Construction of Residential Complex was subjudice before the Hon'ble B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Service Tax by the appellant. For this reason Department couldnot issued show-cause notice within the normal time period of one year. The failure on the part of the appellants in as much as they have not obtained the Service Tax Registration and also not filed periodical ST-3 return, they have suppressed the fact of non-payment of Service Tax from department therefore the extended period was rightly invoked. Accordingly, the demand of Service Tax and interest thereof is upheld. As regard issue of imposition of penalty under Section 77 & 78, we find that the Adjudicating Authority taken support from various judgments of the Tribunal and also Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Dharamendra Textile Vs. Union of India 231-3 SC....