9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AR) for respondent JUDGEMENT Per: Raju 1. The appellant, M/s.Trinity Developers are engaged in he business of construction of residential complex. A demand for the period 01/04/2009 to 30/06/2012 was raised on 08/02/2013. The appellant had paid the entire demand raised along with interest for the period 16/11/2011 to 05/09/2012. The demand was confirmed by the lower authorities and penalties we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are identical and benefit should be granted to them relying on the aforesaid decision. 3. Ld. AR relies on the impugned order. 4. We have gone through the rival submission. We find that in the instant case the facts of the decision in the case of SP Associates squarely apply as the period and the nature of service is almost identical in the case of SP Associates, following has been observed: 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndustry (supra), the constitutional validity of the levy of construction of complex were challenged. It is also observed that even after 1.7.2010 the Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry filed writ petition in the Hon'ble Bombay High Court wherein a stay was granted on 23.10.2010 and finally judgment was passed by the Hon'ble High Court in January 2012 only. Even the said judgment was challenge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not be imposed invoking the provisions of Section 80 of the Act. The penalties imposed under Section 77 & 78 are waived, however the service tax and interest thereon paid by the appellant is upheld. I, therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal of the appellant. 5. Relying on the aforesaid decision, penalties imposed under Section 77 & 7 of the Finance Act are waived by invokin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
