2018 (11) TMI 1726

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... M.P. Damle, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER: S.K. MOHANTY Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that during the disputed period, the appellant had entered into contract with the Municipal Corporations for changing of electrical fittings, including bulbs, tubelights, vapour lamps as per the requirement of the corporations and their subscribers. The department inter....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 31.03.2015 has upheld the adjudged demands confirmed in the original order. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, at the outset, submitted that the show cause proceedings are barred by limitation of time inasmuch as the period in dispute is from October 2006 to March 2011, wher....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er to the extent it had invoked the provisions of Section 78 ibid for imposition of penalty was modified, by replacing the provisions of Section 76 ibid. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that due to utter confusion regarding discharge of tax liability, the appellant did not pay the service tax and that there is no evidence of intention to evade such tax by the appellant. Sub-section (1)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n admitted fact on record that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order has set aside the penalty imposed under Section 78 ibid in the adjudication order, holding that there is no evidence of intention to evade tax by the appellant. Thus, under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the ingredients mentioned in proviso clause to Section 73(1) ibid are present, justifying init....