2023 (11) TMI 1169

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tice dated October 23, 2012 was issued to the appellant alleging that it had not paid service tax to the extent of Rs. 49,82,602/- for the 'works contract services' rendered for the period June 2007 to March 2011, as detailed in the annexure to the show cause notice. Accordingly, it was proposed to recover the aforesaid amount under proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 [the Act] along with interest under section 75 of the Act. Penalties were also proposed to be imposed under sections 76, 78 and 77(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant does not dispute that it rendered the 'works contract services' as alleged in the show cause notice. However, it submits that these services were rendered to government authorities and, therefore, were ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... this appeal before the Tribunal. There is no prayer clause in the appeal. However, under Form ST-5 against Sl. No. 24 the relief claimed is as follows : "The Order in Appeal passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) read with the concerned Adjudication Order deserves to be set aside." 4. When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. It is seen that nobody has been appearing even in the past when the matter was listed. However, when the matter was listed on June 30, 2023, the appellant sent a written submission dated June 27, 2023 titled "Written submission/arguments at the time of personal hearing submitted in lieu of personal appearance and in compliance thereof". In these submissions, the appellant ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....equest made is that the benefit of section 76 of the Act should be given to the appellant as it had already paid the entire amount of service tax demanded along with interest and penalty equal to 25% of the penalty imposed. We find that this is a fact which needs to be verified. There is no dispute regarding the amount of service tax liability. The only issue that has to be seen is whether the appellant had deposited only Rs. 17,85,662/- as held by the original authority or it had deposited Rs. 13,87,713/- as asserted by the appellant. It also needs to be verified that whether the appellant had deposited 25% of the penalty of Rs. 13,87,713/- within 30 days to avail the benefit of the proviso to section 78 of the Act. 7. In view of the ab....