2018 (4) TMI 1402

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellant had received an amount as advance payment in the month of December 2007 against consulting engineering services to be provided to Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (RINL) and noticed that they had not discharged the service tax on the said amount of advance so received for provision of taxable service. Various statements were recorded and it was noticed that the appellant had raised three invoices No.8, 9 and 10 for payment of 10% of the advance in respect of contract amount of three agreements. Show cause notice was issued for the demand of service tax liability along with interest and also for imposition of penalties. Appellant contested the show cause notice before the adjudicating authority who did not agree with the contentions rai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....provisions of the law and come to a correct conclusion that on the confirmation of the demand of the tax liability. It is his submission that the appellant being in the organized sector, should have discharged the service tax liability on their own without waiting for the audit party to point out the errors. He would then submit that the clauses of agreement No.2 which is being put forth by the appellant to submit that there was supply of the goods and no services were involved, is totally erroneous as all the three agreements are specific in stating that each agreement would form an integral part of the contract entered for execution of design, manufacture and supply of plant, machinery and equipment. He would submit that agreement No.2 wh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... under agreement No.1 and 3. We find no substance in the submissions made by learned counsel that penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority, equivalent to the service tax liability payable on invoice No.8 and 10, needs to be set aside. In our view, the adjudicating authority as well as learned DR were correct in stating that the appellant being in the organized sector, should have discharged the service tax liability on receipt of the amount as an advance from RINL. To that extent, we hold that the appeal of the appellant fails and the impugned order needs to be upheld as also the tax liability that arises on the appellant with interest. 7. As regards the service tax liability on the amount received as advance for agreement No.2, we ....