2023 (9) TMI 1142

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2023<br>Service Tax<br>HON'BLE MR.ASHOK JINDAL , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON'BLE MR. K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri J. Chattopadhyay , Authorised Representative for the Appellant Shri N. K. Chowdhury , Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal : Both are in appeals against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that the assesse is a service provider a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and a penalty under Section 78 of the Act, was also imposed, but no penalty was imposed on the assessee under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.4 The assessee is in appeal against the said confirmation of demand whereas the Revenue is in appeal against the order of non-imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Act. Therefore, both sides are in appeal. 3. The ld.Advocate for the asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ble works contracts were not liable to pay service tax prior to 01.06.2007 and admittedly, they are engaged in the activity of construction services along with materials. He further submits that the assessee has paid an amount of Rs.42,50,000/- and if the demand on construction service prior to 01.06.2007 is not considered, then the total liability works out Rs.22,70,491/-,whereas the assessee pai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....any amount is payable by the assesse, the same shall be adjusted as the assessee has already paid an amount of Rs.42,50,000/- during investigation and Rs.14,13,327/ after issuance of show-cause notice. The said amount is to be adjusted against the confirmed demand along with interest. 7. We further hold that prior to the period 01.06.2007 as there is a composite contract wherein supply of mater....