K.S.JHAVERI,J. - (1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
(2.) Counsel for the appellant has framed following substantial question of law:- "(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalties imposed upon the assessee under section 76 and 78 of the Act despite upholding the finding of suppression and evasion of Service Tax? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in passing a contradictory order and thereby deleting the penalty only on the ground of non receipt of tax by the assessee from the service receiver?"
(3.) The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in providing the services of Real Estate Consultant/Management Consultancy/Consulting Engineer/Business Auxiliary Services to Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur under a contract with Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur in which they have made an agreement with Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur for Developing, Designing and Marketing of "Raj Aangan Scheme" (NRI Scheme) for Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur. The above referred activities of M/s. SPPL, Jaipur seemed to be clearly fall under the category of Real Estate Consultant/Consulting Engineer/Management Consultant/Business Auxiliary services. 3. 1 A search of the office premises of the appellant at 68 Gopal Bari, Jaipur was conducted on 6-12-2006. During the search it was found that they were engaged in providing the services of Designing, Marketing and Management to Rajasthan Housing Board and had paid service tax on gross amount charged from the customers. Moreover, the appellant had obtained service tax registration. ;