2018 (11) TMI 305

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri Abhinav Kalra (C.A.) for the Appellant (s) Shri Rajeev Ranjan (Addl.Commr.) (A.R.) for the Revenue ORDER Per ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR : Heard on the early hearing application. Since the issue involved is only in respect of challenge to the penalties imposed under Section 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, early hearing was allowed and wit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on of the party is that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for the reasons that they had bona fide belief that they were not liable for payment of service tax for the amounts received after 01.07.2010 in respect of flats sold prior to 01.07.2010; that it is a dispute on interpretation of provisions of service tax law for which extended period of limitation cannot be invoked; and that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he allegations/charges made in the SCN except some which have been contested as discussed above. Therefore, their contention that the omissions and commissions made by them were because of bona fide belief is not tenable. The party have not produced any material to substantiate that the omission and commissions on their part were bonafide. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, as discusse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ice tax under RCM. Therefore, they are liable to penalty under section 77 ibid." 3. We note that the ld. Representative of Revenue has agreed that the entire amount confirmed was paid before issue of show cause notice and has been appropriated through the Order-in-Original. We find that the original authority is silent on the contention of the appellant that in view of the payment of entire amo....