TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1365
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4-2018<br>CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NOS. 11/2014, 15/2014, 09/2014, 13/2014 ALONG WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NOS. 4/2015 AND 7/2012, CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 11/2014 With CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 15/2014 And CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 7/2012 - -<br>Service Tax<br>MR B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND MR A.D. UPADHYE, JJ. For The Appellant : S.N. Bhattad & Shri K. Nalamwar, Advocates For The Respondent : Shri S.N. Kapoor, Advocate ORDER Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. All these appeals are already admitted for final hearing on some what identical question of law. 3. After hearing respective counsel, as we find that same Bench of Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the CESTAT" for short)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer in order in original has additionally called upon them to pay interest and penalty. These levies were also questioned in appeal before the CESTAT. The CESTAT has not recorded any finding on said challenges raised by the Assessee. 7. Today it is not in dispute that the Assessees' have also accepted the interest factor and hence, consideration now is limited only to penalty. Contention of respective Assessee is, as there was a bonafide dispute in relation to nature of activity, the Assessee's cannot be held at fault and therefore, the penalty cannot be demanded. They also claim that in contract reached with WCL, there was no provision casting burden upon the Assessees' to pay service tax. This extra burden therefore, was the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een commented upon and its perusal reveals that a lenient view has been taken. In this situation, because of different view in the matter, we find substance in submission of Shri Bhattad, learned counsel that this order dated 03.10.2013 also shows non application of mind. 10. In so far as the order which took converse view and assailed by the Assessee in other matters are concerned, there the consideration ends with a finding on nature of contract. The CESTAT holds that contract of Assessee with WCL is for a site formation. There the provisions of Section 80 of Finance Act or then circular dated 12.11.2007 are totally omitted from consideration. The said order, therefore, also show non application of mind. 11. In Central Excise Appeal Nos....