9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on 25-3-2008 proposing to demand service tax on the entire amount of premium. The submission that Commissioner (Appeals) travelled beyond the show-cause notice has to be upheld. Further the appellants are not challenging the demand for service tax and appropriation of the amount of service tax and interest paid by them and therefore whatever has been paid and appropriated has to be upheld. - When Demand itself is not sustainable, the imposition of penalty under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 cannot be sustained. - Decided in favor of assessee. - ST/1263/2011 - 177/2012 - Dated:- 17-2-2012 - Shri B.S.V. Murthy, J. REPRESENTED BY : Ms. Neethu James, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Ravichandran, Superintendent, for the Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the service tax amounting to Rs. 48,24,158/- along with applicable interest under Section 75 and imposed penalty under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of FA, 1994 for their failure to pay service tax in time, failure to furnish statutory returns and for suppressing and concealing the gross amount of taxable value with intent to evade payment of service tax, respectively. 2. Aggrieved by the order-in-original, appellant preferred an appeal which culminated in the impugned order wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand for service tax of Rs. 48,24,158/- with interest on the ground that the appellant is not liable to pay the same under the category of Authorized Service Station Service . Further he held, that the action of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has travelled beyond the show-cause notice. Appellant had paid the service tax and interest thereon since they felt that the amount which is due to the Government should be paid. Imposition of penalty under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 when the confirmation of demand itself was not in accordance with law is not correct. The view taken by the learned Commissioner that there was a delay in payment and therefore penalty is attracted cannot be sustained. I am inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel. On going through the show-cause notice, I find that the proposal was to levy service tax on the premium amount received by the appellant and passed on to M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
