2018 (8) TMI 1586

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... R Per Bench At the time of hearing the Ld. Counsel Shri S. Viswanathan appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant is contesting the penalty imposed in the present appeal. 2. Brief facts are that the appellant was engaged in construction of commercial building and was issued SCN demanding service tax under "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service" for the period Apr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appellant has not collected any service tax separately. That the failure to discharge service tax was only because the issue was under much confusion and being an interpretational issue, he pleaded that the penalty imposed under Section 78 may be set aside. 4. The Ld. AR, Shri A. Cletus, ADC, supported the findings in the impugned order. He stressed that the appellant had collected the servic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g the aspect of liability to service tax in the case of Joint Development of land. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in the case of Magus Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI - 2008 (11) S.T.R. 225 (Gau.), was also prevailing the field. There is no evidence adduced by the department to establish that the appellants are guilty of suppression of facts with intention to evade payment .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X