2020 (3) TMI 321

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (TECHNICAL) Ms. M. Vigneshwari, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. S. Balakumar, Authorized Representative (A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER Per : Hon'ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Brief facts are that the appellants, who are engaged in execution of construction services, were issued Show Cause Notice dated 07.10.2010 proposing to demand Service Tax under the category of 'Construction of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ider have not paid the service tax. The penalty shall stand restricted to 25% of Rs. 3,41,152/-, in terms of proviso to Section 78 of the Act, provided the Service Tax along with interest and 25% of the penalty is paid within 30 days from the date of communication of this order." 2. Against the reduced penalty imposed by the Additional Commissioner, the Department filed appeal before the Commis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dustrial Construction Service". d) The respondents are not liable to penalty under Section 76 ibid as the penalties under Sections 76 and 78 are mutually exclusive. e) Accordingly, the departmental application is allowed." Aggrieved by such order, the appellants are now before the Tribunal. 3.1 Learned Counsel Ms. M. Vigneshwari appeared and argued the matter on behalf of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise, Chennai in Service Tax Appeal No. 723 of 2010 & ors. vide Final Order Nos. 42436 to 42438 of 2018 dated 18.09.2018. However, the Learned Counsel was fair enough to concede that they have not filed any appeal against the confirmation of demand on merits against the order passed by the Origi....