9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... due to wrong reconciliation of the amount received. Therefore the penalty cannot be imposed. Held that - The facts for imposition of penalty u/s 78 is narrated clearly in the SCN. Further, the adjudicating authority had clearly mentioned in the adjudication order that if the service tax determined is paid within thirty days from the date of communication of the order, then the amount of penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Government s account. After detection by the audit party on 21.11.2008, the appellants deposited the entire amount of tax of Rs.1,88,108/- along with interest of Rs.71,181/- before issue of show-cause notice. Show-cause notice dated 22.1.2009 was issued proposing to impose penalty under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.The adjudicating authority imposed penalty equal to tax of Rs.1,8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equirement for determination of the tax in the show-cause notice under Section 73(2) to impose penalty under Sec. 78. Thus the imposition of penalty is not sustainable. 3. The learned AR submits that in this case it is clearly evident from the show-cause notice that the appellant collected the tax and have not deposited. He, further, submits that the internal audit party detected the non-payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... themselves for penalty under Section 76 for failure to pay correct service tax and penalty under Section 78 for suppressing the value of the taxable service. Apart from that, in my considered view, the facts for imposition of penalty under Section 78 is narrated clearly in the show-cause notice. Further, the adjudicating authority had clearly mentioned in the adjudication order that if the servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
