2018 (6) TMI 1361

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts had not paid the service tax liability in respect of the such services rendered. Accordingly, a SCN dated 09.04.2009 was issued to them, interalia proposing demand of tax liability under various categories for various periods as under:- i) For the period 10.09.2004 to 16.06.2005, under Construction services, and the period 16.06.2005 to 30.09.2008 under Commercial or Industrial construction Services (CICS); the total demand proposed for these two periods being Rs. 3,88,78,213/- with interest thereon. ii) For the period 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008, under Works Contract; demand proposed for this period being Rs. 26,88,611/-. In adjudication, vide the impugned order dated 29.10.2010, the adjudicating authority confi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Ld. Counsel pleaded that in view of these on-going communication with the department and also considering that the tax liability should be considered as discharged, the penalty imposed on the appellant may be set aside. 3. On the other hand, for Revenue Ld. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC, supports the impugned order. He submits that appellant had been collecting service tax under works contract category itself even prior to 01.04.2008, hence the penalty imposed on the appellant is very much sustainable. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 5.1 The payment upto 01.06.2007 will get extinguished on account of the law that has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd., (supra), relied upon ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....discharged by the appellants. So ordered. 5.4 With regard to the penalties, the penal provisions will have a bearing only in respect of the demand for the period 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008 under works contract service. The appellants have sent number of letters to the department on this issue. It is also only on 1.04.2008, that the registration certificate had been amended to include works contract service as per the request of the appellant. This being so, and also considering the fact that the issue per se was also mired in litigation and reached finality only after the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement in L& T (supra)., we are of the firm opinion that there cannot be any penalty imposed in the impugned order and therefore set aside the same.....