9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 854X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the order of original authority involving duplication of demand and in the amount shown as paid by the assessee - Appellant-assessee fairly points out that permitting of cum tax benefit by the Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong, as the service tax amount stands subsequently collected by them from the recipient - Therefore, set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and that of the original authority and remand the matter to the original authority for fresh consideration. - ST/636/2010 & ST/661/2010 - - - Dated:- 14-2-2011 - Hon'ble Mr. M.VEERAIYAN, Technical Member Shri A.V.Ayyappan, Consultant For the Assessee Shri K.Balasubramanian, DR For the Revenue Appeal No.ST/661/10 is by M/s.Sri Adhava Construct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced from Rs.2,72,777/- to Rs.2,26,210/- after extending cum duty abatement and other eligible abatements. The amount of Rs.1,90,988/- paid by the appellants is appropriated towards their liability. b) The appellants are liable to pay appropriate interest. The amount of Rs.15,675/- paid by the appellants is appropriated towards their interest liability. c) Penalty of Rs.2,72,777/- imposed under Sec. 78 of Finance Act, 1994 is reduced to Rs.1,25,000/- only. 4.1. Learned consultant for the appellant-assessee submits that the appellant firm was run by its proprietor who was a technically qualified person but was not well versed with the law relating to service tax matters. During the relevant period, he had some personal dif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cum tax benefit even though they have not claimed any such benefit and in fact they have since collected service tax amount as per the invoices from the recipient. 4.5 The proprietor of the appellant-assessee was not aware of the service tax law and was under bonafide impression that the service tax shall be paid only by the recipient of the services. However, on being pointed out, he has paid the entire service tax involved. Therefore, no penalty should have been imposed on him under Section 78. Alternatively, it was submitted that both the authorities have failed to give option to pay reduced concessional penalty provided under proviso to Section 78 of the Finance Act. If this benefit is extended, then the penalty imposed by the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cie, there are discrepancies in the order of original authority involving duplication of demand and in the amount shown as paid by the assessee. Appellant-assessee fairly points out that permitting of cum tax benefit by the Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong, (eventhough the same is in their favour) as the service tax amount stands subsequently collected by them from the recipient. 6.2 In view of the above, I find that the entire matter involves disputed facts like claim of duplication of demand, on the actual quantum of service tax paid by the appellant-assessee during investigation, and, therefore, I hold that the matter requires to be reconsidered afresh by the original authority. To enable the same, I set aside the order of the Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
