9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l No.306/2010(STC)/MM/Commr.(A)/Ahd, dt.23.09.10. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the appellant herein is providing output service under the category of maintenance and repair services on which tax liability is discharged. During the course of audit of the records maintained by the assessee, it was noticed that the assessee-appellant had not discharged correct service tax l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the copy of the returns to prove that point which was not accepted by the first appellate authority and the first appellate authority has upheld the order in original that confirmed the demands and imposed the penalties. 3. Ld. chartered accountant appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the amount has been discharged is undisputed. It is his submission that both the lower auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er authorities. 4. Ld. Additional Commissioner, (A.R.) would submit that clarification is received from the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax (Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner) and who vide letter dated 29.2.12 has stated that an amount of Rs.39,028/- was paid twice over. He submits that the appellant is liable for penalty as he has not discharged the service tax liability po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the issuance of show cause notice. 8. In my view, the appellant having discharged the entire service tax liability before the issuance of show cause notice has correctly sought the invocation of the provisions of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 which talks about non issuance of show cause notice for imposition of penalties. I find that the appellant was correct in bringing to my noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
