TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1232
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal of the appellant and partly upheld the order dated 14.6.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner, had, in his order, decided the proposals made in the show cause notice dated 13.11.2019 [SCN] by confirming demand of service tax of Rs. 7,52,403/- on the appellant under the proviso to section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 [Act] invoking extended period of limitation along with interest under section 75 of the Act and imposed an equal amount as penalty under section 78 of the Act and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under section 77 of the Act. He dropped demand of Rs. 11,28,602/- proposed in the SCN. The Commissioner (Appeals) has, in the impugned order, further reduced the demand of service tax to Rs. 7,07,899. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of BT Road which, according to the appellant were exempted by Exemption No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.6.2012 (S. No. 14(d)] 3. The appellant is also contesting the demand on the ground of limitation asserting that the ingredients necessary to invoke extended period of limitation were not present in the case. For the same reason, according to the appellant, penalty under section 78 could not have been imposed. According to the appellant, all its transactions were meticulously accounted for and the entire demand is based on the data obtained from the appellant itself and it is only a question of interpretation of law and the appellant believed and continues to believe that no service tax was payable. Hence, the appellant had not paid service tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istered with the service tax department and it had not filed any service tax returns and had also not paid any service tax during the relevant period. On the basis of information obtained from income tax department, service tax officers initiated enquiries, investigated the matter and issued an SCN demanding service tax of Rs. 18,81,005/-. After considering the submissions of the appellant, the Assistant Commissioner confirmed demand of only Rs.7,52,403/- and on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has, in the impugned order reduced further to Rs. 7,07,899/- only on three services rendered by the appellant and discussed above. There is no appeal by the department to the extent the demands were dropped by the lower authorities. The issue has a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ishi Upaj Mandi are not meant for public use but are within the mandi and hence the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of the exemption. 10. We do not agree with the contention of the department. The roads in question are not private roads in a private property. Krishi Upaj Mandi is meant for use by general public such as farmers, traders, etc. and hence any roads constructed therein are also meant for use of public. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of this exemption. 11. The appellant constructed covering of auction platforms, boundary walls, check posts and approach gate in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, which, according to the appellant was exempted by Notification No. 25/2012-ST [S. No. 14(d)]. This entry of th....