2021 (10) TMI 304

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hree appeals involving the similar issue on similar facts. Hence, these appeals are taken up together for disposal. 2. The appellants are registered with the Service Tax Department and are engaged in providing works contract services, inter alia, to Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., a State PSU (in short, RRVPNL). It appeared to Revenue that the appellant have not paid or short paid service tax for the taxable services provided during the period 2010-2011 to 2014-2015 and thus, the short paid tax is Rs. 7,75,082/-. On requisition, the Revenue received the details of payment made to various contractors, including the appellant, from RRVPNL. It further appeared that in terms of Section 68(1) read with Section 68(2) read with Noti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ommerce or industry, or work intended for commerce or industry. Reliance was placed on the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Universe Textile Ltd.Vs. CCE - 2013 (31) Taxman.com 67. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Asstt. Commissioner, who confirmed the proposed demand along with equal amount of penalty under Section 78. Further, penalty was imposed also under Section 77 (1a) and (c), and also under Section 77 (2) of the Finance Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) 5. The appellant, inter alia, urged that exemption notification no.11/2010-ST dated 27.12.2010, provides that the services provided by any person to any other person for 'transmission of electr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r to 01.07.2012 was dropped, along with equal amount of peantly under Section 78. Further, penalty under Section 77 was also upheld. 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal on the ground that the penalty imposed under Section 78 is unreasonable and bad in the facts and in law. Further urges, admittedly, the appellant was entitled to exemption of service tax as found by the Commissioner (Appeals) i.e. prior to 30.06.2012. Further, the appellant was entitled to exemption under Mega Exemption under Notification No.25/2012 (S.No.12), as services have been provided to a Government Company for transmission and distribution of electricity. Further also entitled to SSI exemption during 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2014. Further, in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ual amount of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 as well as penalty under Section 77 (1)(c) and Section 77 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994. In the first appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand for the period up to 30.06.2012 and confirmed the demand for the balance period, of Rs.,1,31,331/- along with interest and equal amount of penalty and thus, dropped the proportionate penalty under Section 78. The appellant is in appeal against the confirmation of tax and penalties. C. Appeal No.ST/50751 of 2019 (SM) - Arvind Pania 9. Under the similar facts and circumstances, this appellant has also done work for RRVPL and similarly the demand was raised and confirmed for the period 2010-2011 to 2014-2015, of Rs. 19,....