2023 (9) TMI 1064

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2013 (post negative list regime) and ordered to be deposited by the appellant along with interest and also imposed penalty under Section 76 of the Act equal to 10% of the service tax. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in providing services under the category (i) Management, Maintenance or Repair services (ii) Erection, Commissioning or installation and (iii) Construction of Residential Complex and (iv) Commercial or industrial construction services. 3. That on the basis of information, that the appellant had provided taxable services under the category of taxable services provided i.e. "Construction of Residential complex Services" & Commercial Construction services. An enquiry was conducted ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 77 and penalty of Rs. 40,69,697/- under Section 78. 4. The Appellant filed an appeal before Commissioner(Appeals) CGST Commtt. Chd, against OIO dated 23.01.2019, who vide OIA No. CHD-EXCUS-001-APP04/2021-22 dated 26.04.2021, thereunder, ordered to deposit the demand in respect of services provided to Thapar University, Patiala for the period 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2013(Post-negative list regime) alongwith interest and imposed penalty under Section 76 of the Act equal to 10% of the service tax. The Appellants are in appeal against the said OIA. 5. Heard both the parties and perused the record. 6. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 23.04.2013 and 23.04.2014, as such provisions of Section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994 no penal action warranted and further the penalty under Section 76 liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, Ld. DR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that the allegation of the appellant that he has paid the service tax for the period 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2013 to the tune of Rs. 20,29,280/- was discharged in the year 2013-2014 has been considered by the Commissioner and he has given detailed findings in the impugned order in para no. 8B.3 to 8B.3.1. 9. She further submitted that if the appellant has excess paid in their service tax returns for the period 2013-14, then there is a separate mechanism to handle the same as pro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t was required to be issued as per the provisions of Section 73(3) of the Act. "8B.3.1 However, on examining the details annexed with the appeal and the challans submitted by the appellants, I find that there is nothing to co-relate the amounts paid with the liability of the appellants for the post negative list regime period, therefore, nothing could be deduced regarding payment of service tax liability w.e.f. 01.07.2012 in want of any corroborative documents." 13. Further, I find that the ground taken by the appellant that the service tax liability for 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2013 was discharged in the year 2013-14 is not tenable as the service tax return for the financial year 2013-14 filed by the appellant has never been challen....