2018 (2) TMI 839

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri Narendra Singhvi, Advocate - for the respondent ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran 1. The Revenue is in appeal against order dated 22/12/2011 of Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi. The respondent also filed the cross objection. The respondent is engaged in construction services and also in manufacture of cement etc. Proceedings were initiated against the respondent to demand and recover....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iod of demand. It is the case of the revenue that when the penalty was imposed for one of the services and in the face of clear finding regarding suppression etc, the penalty should have been imposed on the other service also. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent contesting the appeal by the Revenue submitted that the whole demand is on reverse charge basis. The issue was contentious and litig....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... have been to close the matter in terms of Section 73 (3) without further proceedings. Instead the revenue proceeded to initiate action and it imposed penalty on one of the services. In the cross appeal, the respondent raised the issues regarding this penalty and also limitation. 4. We have heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 5. Admittedly, the tax liability on the respondent is....