9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the said purpose. The Department in this case, had gathered specific information that the appellants had not paid service tax on the said services provided by them. Accordingly, investigation was conducted, which culminated into the show cause notice dated 01.09.2006, seeking confirmation of service tax demand on the appellants. The matter arising out of the SCN was adjudicated vide the impugned order dated 31.03.2014, wherein the learned Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II has confirmed service tax demand along with interest and also imposed penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellants have preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Heard both sides and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne 2005, the same cannot be liable for payment of service tax inasmuch as works contract service was brought into the taxing net with effect from 01.06.2007. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the service tax demand of Rs.3,22,401/- confirmed in the impugned order cannot be sustained. 3.2 As regards the demand of Rs.2,31,397/- confirmed in the impugned order for provision of consulting engineer service, we find that during the course of investigation, the appellants vide their letter dated 15.07.2006 had confirmed regarding payment of service tax in respect of the services provided to M/s Pratibha Industries Limited. Further, we also find that during the course of adjudication and in the appeal memorandum filed before the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot be sustained, since there was reasonable cause for non-payment of service tax by the appellants. We find that there was ambiguity with regard to payment of service tax by the recipient of the said services, under reverse charge mechanism. There were also divergent views expressed by the judicial forums with regard to payment of service tax by the person, other than the service provider. Since, the appellants have accepted their liability; we are of the view that this is a fit case for invocation of the provisions of Section 80 ibid for non-imposition of penalties. Therefore, the penalties imposed in the impugned order under Sections 76, 77 and 78 ibid are liable to be set aside. 4. In view of the forgoing discussions, the appeal file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
