9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocates for the appellant. Shri Sanjay Jain, AR for the respondent. ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran The appeal is against order dated 27.08.2013 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Indore. The appellants are engaged in providing Consultancy Engineering service liable to service tax. They were registered with the Department and were discharging service tax and filing regul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid, the Original Authority confirmed the service tax liability of Rs. 3,13,87,615/- and imposed penalty of 50% of the confirmed tax liability in terms of the Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant contesting the impugned order submitted that they have been discharging service tax on the Consulting Engineer Service promptly. However, they were under bonafide belief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod beyond the normal period of limitation. He also prayed for setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. 3. Ld. AR submitted that the appellant should have discharged service tax on all the considerations as there is no exclusion for a sub-consultant. There could be no bonafide belief when consideration is received for consulting engineer service. 4. We have heard both the sides and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that ground, he reduced the penalty to 50% under Section 78. We find if such is the situation, the case of mis-representation etc. to invoke extended period is not tenable. Even otherwise, we note that the appellants did declare all the considerations received by them in their statutory returns filed with the Department. The audit also recorded that the income under sub-consultancy work is as pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
