TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1568
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed upon the assessee u/s 76 & 78 of the Act despite upholding the finding of suppression and evasion of Service Tax? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in passing a contradictory order and thereby deleting the penalty only on the ground of non receipt of tax by the assessee from the service receiver?" 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in providing the services of Real Estate Consultant/Management Consultancy/Consulting Engineer/Business Auxillary Services to Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur under a contract with Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur in which they have made an agreement with Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur for Developing, Designing and Marketing of "Raj Aangan Scheme" (NRI Scheme) for Rajasthan Ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... even at the time of adjudication. The first Original order was passed ex-parte. It was recorded that detailed data alongwith defence reply has not been received from the appellant and accordingly, the original authority proceeded to adjudicate the case based on available records. The said order was set aside and the first appellate authority remanded the case for a fresh decision. 9. In the second proceedings, more particulars alongwith supporting documents were submitted by the appellant which were taken on record and the decision was arrived at. We could see from the impugned order in the second proceedings that the service tax demand was confirmed under category of Real Estate Consultant. 10 We have perused the terms of agreement.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tedly, the appellants raised various bills to Rajasthan Housing Board which indicated service tax element separately. Though, the appellants submitted that they did not receive the tax amount from their clients, the incidence of tax liability is apparently in the knowledge of the appellant and they have not got themselves registered with the Department, neither filed periodical returns. In the facts of this case, we find that a demand for extended period in terms of proviso to Section 73(1) is rightly invokable. Further, we note that the appellants strongly pleaded for waiver of penalty in terms of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants though raised bill with service tax, have not received the tax amount from the Rajasthan Hou....