9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue that appellant had provided the said services to telecom service providers for constructing foundation for towers. The assessee's claim is that the services of construction of RCC foundation is not covered under Commercial and Industrial Construction as the said foundation includes bolts on which the tower is erected hence rightly classifiable under 'Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services' and liable to be taxed from 01.03.2006. Adjudicating authority however did not impose any penalties on the appellant. Aggrieved by such an order, appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority and the Revenue also preferred an appeal before first appellate authority for imposition of penalties under Section 78 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made before the lower authorities he would submit that the impugned order be set aside. It is his submission that appellant has already discharged the service tax liability along with interest thereof, hence lenient view be taken on the penalty imposed. 5. Learned D.R. reiterated the findings of the first appellate authority. 6. On consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find that on merits the submissions made by the learned Consultant are required to be rejected as the scope of the services falling under the head "Commercial and Industrial Construction Services" would include construction of a new building or civil structure or part thereof. It is undisputed that appellant is engaged in providing of services of constru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 are attracted in this case as can be seen from the findings recorded by the first appellate authority. 6.4 It is seen from the records that appellant has been constantly disputed the service tax liability without providing any details to the lower authorities is an indicator that the appellant's intention to evade service tax liability. Accordingly, we hold that the penalty imposed by the first appellate authority under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is correct. However, we find that the first appellate authority has not extended the benefit of paying 25% of the penalty imposed under Section 78 as per the provisions. The 2 nd proviso to Section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
