TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6-2-2015 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri. K. S. Mishra, Addl. Commissioner(A.R.) For the Respondent : Shri. Kaustubh Kairnar, Advocate ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair This Revenue s appeal is directed against Order-in- Appeal No. PIII/RP/238/2012 dtd. 29/10/2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-III), Central Excise, Pune, wherein while upholding the confirmation of demand of ₹ 7,85,904/-, penalty of equal amount imposed by the adjudicating authority was waived under Section 80 of the Act. The fact of the case is that the appellant engaged in providing services i.e. Commercial Construction service as defined under Section 68(1) 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. For providing such se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervices, respondent have intentionally undervalued the services and evaded the service tax, hence there was correct liability of imposition of penalty under Section 78, therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in waiving the said penalty. He prays that impugned order be set aside and Revenues appeal be allowed. He placed reliance on following judgments. (a) [2006(1)S.T.R. 289(Tri-Chennai)] Inma International Security Academy P. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Chennai (b) [2007(6) S.T.R. 54(Tri- Mumbai)] ETC Networds Ltd. Vs. CC. Ex. Mumbai-I (c) [2007(211) E.L.T. 233(Tri. Mumbai)] Triton Communication Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC of C. Ex. Mumbai (d) [2007(6) S.T.R. 32(Tri-Kokata)] CC.Ex. Kolkata-I Vs. Gurdian Leisure Planners Pvt. Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that as of now, after conflicting views on the merit of the issue the Larger Bench in Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd (Supra) case, it was held that the respondent is not required to pay service tax. Since on the issue on merit there were conflicting views and finally issue was decided by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal there is reasonable cause of non-payment of service tax on the abatement amount. Therefore in my considered view Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly waived the penalty under Section 78 invoking Section 80 of Finance Act, 1944. In this regard the finding of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is reproduced below:- Regarding penalty, I find that there is substantial force i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
