TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d post 01.06.2007, the appellant is liable to pay service tax. As per N/N. 32/2007 ST dt. 22.05.2007, the appellant is at the liberty to pay service tax @ 2% of the total receipt or to pay service tax as per work contract, the appellant is opted to pay @2% at the amount received - Further, as appellant has not received any amount towards service tax from Haryana Housing Board; therefore, the receipt amount is to be taken as cum service tax and benefit of cum service tax is to be given to the appellant. The matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority after setting aside the impugned order to re-quantify the demand as discussed above after deciding the issue of extended period of limitation - appeal allowed by way of remand. - S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax from Haryana Housing Board. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant contended that while filing bid for obtaining the work order, the appellant has offered to Haryana Housing Board that the service tax is payable but Haryana Housing Board reduced offered amount to the extent of service tax element on the ground that the service tax is not payable by Haryana Housing Board and the work contract was awarded to the appellant by reducing the amount of service tax from the Haryana Housing Board. Haryana Housing Board issued a letter to the appellant that the services provided to them is not liable for service tax. It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants that in internal correspondence between Central Excise Department an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able to pay service tax, at the best, they could have inquired from the Central Excise Department whether there is liability of service tax arises on them or not. In that circumstances, the penalty is rightly imposed on the appellant. 6. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 7. On perusal of the record, we find that initially the demand of service tax was confirmed along with interest and the penalty under Section 78 of the Act was imposed. The said order was challenged before this Tribunal and this Tribunal uphold the demand of service tax on 33% of the amount received by giving cum tax benefit and the penalty under Section 78 was confirmed. The said order was challenged by the appellants before the Hon ble High Court and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opted to pay @2% at the amount received, in that circumstances, the appellant is liable to pay service tax @2% of receipts upto 01.03.2008 and thereafter @ 4% of the receipts. 10. Further, we find that as appellant has not received any amount towards service tax from Haryana Housing Board; therefore, the receipt amount is to be taken as cum service tax and benefit of cum service tax is to be given to the appellant. 11. We also take note of the fact that the appellant is contended that extended period of limitation not invokable, the said fact is required to be examined by the Adjudicating Authority in the light of the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel and paper placed before the Adjudicating Authority by the appellant. 12. Furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
