TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 508
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....endent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER This appeal has been filed by M/s. Sumeru Builders against confirmation of demand of service tax and imposition of penalty. 02. Learned Chartered Accountant appearing for the appellant argued that the appellant had no intention to evade any service tax. The appellants were at the material time engaged in building of residential complex and in terms of clarif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6/- along with interest of Rs.47,925/-, late fee of Rs.2,000/- on 18.04.2011 and 20.04.2011 through various challans. He argued that they had also filed ST-3 returns on 20.4.2011. 2.1 He argued that they are not challenging the liability of service tax. He argued that the benefit of Section 73(3) has been denied and a show cause notice was issued to them. Although, they had paid the entire tax li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d order. He pointed out that the appellant had not discharged their service tax liability therefore, the benefit of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act cannot be extended to the appellant. 04. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We find that the appellants had discharged the liability to service tax soon after the same was pointed out by revenue. It has been argued by the appellant t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., with the addition of tax payable, is equal to the gross amount charged. He pointed out that since they had discharged the service tax liability after availing the benefit of sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 their claim to the application of Section 73(3) could not have been discarded by the original adjudicating authority. 4.1 We find that Section 67(2) clearly provided ....