TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 10/2016 - - - Dated:- 1-3-2017 - SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ. Shri S.N. Bhattad, counsel for the appellant. By this central excise appeal, the appellant department has challenged the order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 11.03.2015 partly allowing the appeal filed by the respondent and holding that it was a fit case for invoking the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 so as to delete the order imposing penalty under Section 73 of the Act. The respondent undertakes construction activities and for the relevant period, i.e. 2004-05 to 2008-09, the respondent was awarded a contract for construction of Cotton Market under Technology Mission on C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority on the respondent is assailed by the appellant department in this appeal. Shri Bhattad, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Tribunal could not have set aside the penalties imposed on the respondent. It is submitted that though the respondent had not paid the service tax in respect of the services rendered to A.P.M.C. Malkapur, it had paid the service tax on the services rendered to A.P.M.C. Belad. It is submitted that the respondent was liable to pay service tax to the tune of ₹ 72,46,972/, but the respondent had only paid a sum of ₹ 63,71,163/before the show cause notice was served. The learned counsel relied on the judgments reported in ( 2009) 13 SCC 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied the provisions of Section 80 of the Act to consider whether there was any reasonable cause for the failure on the part of the respondent to pay the service tax. In respect of A.P.M.C. Belad, the respondent had stated before the adjudicating authority that the respondent had paid the entire amount of service tax in regard to the construction work for the said A.P.M.C. as the said amount was received by it, as service tax from A.P.M.C. Belad and the said amount was paid as it would have attracted the provisions of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in this appeal, specially when the Tribunal has applied the provisions of Section 80(1) and 80(2) of the Act to hold th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
