2018 (10) TMI 94

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra Heard both sides. 2. This is an appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal No. NGP/EXCUS/000/APPL/354/16-17 dated 31.10.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Nagpur. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in providing erection, commission or installation services to Maharashtra Stat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who partly allowed their appeal to the extent of allowing cum tax benefit and reduced the demand to Rs. 1,32,749/-, however, imposed penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it was due to confusion on the taxability of the services relating to transmission of electricity by various Electricity Boards. It is his contention that this is a fit case for invocation of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. 5. Learned AR for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that this is second round of litigation before this Tribunal and the appellants ....