9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 09.02.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a consulting engineer and contractor providing construction services to Government as well as priv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants submitted that the impugned order imposing penalty under Section 78 is not sustainable in law as the same has been imposed contrary to the binding judicial precedent. He further submitted that the appellants opted for VCES and paid the Service Tax as per the said scheme. He further submitted that the appellant was not aware of the tax liability and therefore he had not taken the Service Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TU, Bangalore Vs. ADECO Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd, 2012 (26) STR 3 (Kar.). (ii) Bhoruka Aluminium Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C.Ex. & S.T., Mysore, 2017 (51) STR 418 (Tri. Bang.) (iii) People Consultants Vs. Commr. of C.Ex., Cus. & S.T., Cochin, 2017 (4) GSTL 313 (Tri. Bang.) (iv) ITC Infotech India Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C.Ex., S.T. & Cus., Bangalore-II, 2015 (39) STR 818 (Tri. Bang.). (v) Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly incorrect. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that in the present case, it is a fact that the appellant has paid the Service Tax and interest before the issue of SCN and therefore the issuance of SCN itself, for demanding penalty under Section 78, is not warranted under law. Further, I find that the decisions relied upon by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
