9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the appellant along with imposition of penalty of identical amount under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the allegations and findings that by undertaking the Carpentry work of the building, during the year 2005-06, they have provided services covered by the definition of Commercial and Industrial Construction Services. In addition penalty of Rs. 91,600/- stands imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, for contravention of Section 69 as the appellant failed to obtain the registration certificate during the period in question. 2. Arguing for the appellant, learned advocate draws our attention to the findings of the Original Adjudicating Authority wherein it stands observed that the appellant was doing Carpentry work, in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld apply only in respect of the new building. In any case he submits that the definition at Clause (d) clearly relates to the repair, alteration, renovation, etc., and inasmuch as carpentry services are specifically included in the main definition, the same would also be covered by the definition in Clause (d) even if the same are for repair or renovation purposes. As regards limitation, he submits that admittedly the show cause notice was issued on 22.04.2010 and as per the letter of Superintendent being letter dated 15.11.2010, the same was pasted at the residential address of the appellant. In such a case, the appellant cannot take a stand that show cause notice was not served upon him. 4. As regards merits of the case we have gone thro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve made him to pay duty for the previous year also instead of suppressing the value of the work done during that period. The fact that during the period 2005-06, appellant had done the same service came to the notice of the Revenue only by the audit conducted in subsequent years. In this scenario we hold that the appellant acted with a mala fide and suppressed the work done by him during the period 2005-06 in which case, the longer period stands rightly invoked by the Revenue. As regards the assessee's contention that part of the demand is even beyond the period of 5 years, we note that as per the letter of the Superintendent addressed to the assessee, the show cause notice was pasted at his residential premises on 23.04.2010 itself. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
