9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x liability on the appellant in respect of "Commercial or Industrial Construction and Construction of Complex Services". The appellants are holders of Service Tax Registration Certificate and have been discharging theft Service Tax liability. The period involved in this case is from 10.09.2004 to 31.03.2006. The lower authorities on scrutiny of the Service Tax return for the period and on verification of the total computation of the Service Tax for the period, came to the conclusion that the appellants had received consideration from their customers for their own projects as well as for projects entrusted to many others and the appellants were availing the benefit of abatement of 67% as under Notification No. 18/2005 dated 07.06.2005. It wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould not be demanded/recovered from them in terms of Proviso to Section 73 (1) read with Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994. iii. Interest for delay in payment of Service Tax and education cess should not be demanded and recovered from them till the date of payment in terms of Section 75 of the Act. iv. Penalty for failure to pay Service Tax in accordance with the provisions of Section 68 or Rules made there under should not be imposed on them under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. v. Penalty for failure to declare the correct assessable value and failure to file ST-3 Returns, as mentioned above, as required under the provisions of Section 70 of the Act, should not be imposed on them under Section 77 of the Act. vi. Penalty should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her, starting with the first date after the due date till the date of actual payment of the outstanding amount of service tax, in terms of Sec. 76 of Finance Act, 1994, for failure to pay service tax in time. However, the penalty imposed on this count shall not exceed the service tax amount of Rs. 58,79,294.00 (rupees fifty eight lakh seventy nine thousand two hundred ninety four only), payable by the service provider as confirmed as (i) and (ii) above. v. I impose penalty of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) on the service provider under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for failure to file service tax returns by declaring the correct value in terms of Section 70 of the said Act, and vi. I also impose a penalty of Rs. 58,79,294.00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be covered by the CREC Circular dated 29.01.2009 and no service tax liability arises. At the same time, he would also exhort to go through agreement which has been entered into by the appellant with other promoters/builders/developers. It is his submission that on analysis of the said agreement, it can be seen that the issue may not be covered by the CBEC Circular dated 29.01.2009 [reported in 2009 (90) RLT M91]. He would fairly agree that the Adjudicating Authority in his impugned order has not bifurcated the tax amount payable by the appellant on the services rendered by him for the commercial complexes and residential complexes. 6. Both sides agree that the issue needs reconsideration by the Adjudicating Authority. 7. We have cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
