TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 1311
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are that the appellant during the relevant period were engaged in providing services of fabrication and erection work of cement plant, sugar plant, coal mill, equipment, etc., but did not take Service Tax registration under the relevant applicable category. Alleging that the services rendered by the appellant to their clients fall under taxable category of "Erection, Commissioning and Installation" services, show-cause notice was issued to them on 23.10.2009 for recovery of the Service Tax amount of Rs.1,29,33,441/- for the period from 10th September 2004 to 31st December 2008. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. The present appeal is directed against the penalty imposed on the appellant. 3. At the outset, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3,674/- which was paid by them on 16.7.2010 after the adjudication order was passed. It is his contention that in the order, the learned Commissioner has extended them the benefit of cum-tax value and also allowed CENVAT credit on the input services used by them. He has submitted that since there is bona fide reason in not discharging Service Tax during the relevant period, therefore, the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 be invoked and penalty imposed on the appellant be dropped. 4. Per contra, the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue has submitted that appellant failed to discharge the Service Tax even though they have rendered taxable services during the relevant period. They have started paying Service Tax ....