9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 645X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t appellate authority having reduced the service tax liability on the appellant to Rs.2,47,032/- has not given an option to the appellant for discharge of the penalty under the provisions of Section 78 which needs to be extended to the appellant. - Following the decision in the case of Akash Fashions [2009 (1) TMI 113 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] benefit of payment of penalty of 25% extend to the appellant. - Appeal No.ST/253/10 - - - Dated:- 5-10-2012 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, J. For the Appellant: Ms. Avani Mehta For the Respondent: Shri K.N. Joshi, A.R. JUDGEMENT Per: Mr. M.V. Ravindran; This appeal is filed against order in appeal No.42/2010(STC)/HKJ/Commr.(A)/Ahd, dt.23.02.10. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and also upheld the interest and the penalties imposed under Section 15 and Section 78 on this amount only. 3. While challenging the findings on the first appellate authority, ld. counsel submits that the entire amount of the service tax liability and the interest thereof stands deposited by them on 27.02.06 before the issuance of show cause notice. It is her submission that there was a bonafide belief in the mind of the assessee and hence they should be granted benefit of the provisions of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1944 as they have deposited the entire amount of the service tax liability and interest thereof before the issuance of show cause notice. 4. Ld. D.R. on the other hand would submit that the appellant-assessee being r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice tax liability which has been confirmed and upheld by the first appellate authority, the appellant is liable to penal provisions under Section 76. As regards the penalty under Section 76, I find that the adjudicating authority has already taken a lenient view and imposed penalty of Rs.15,000/- which I consider, in the circumstances of this case as just and uphold the same. 8. As regards the penalty imposed under Section 78, I find that the penalty is liable to be imposed on the appellant under Section 78, as they have collected the amount of service tax from their clients and not reflected but said collected service tax liability in half yearly return filed with the revenue authorities, appellant was correctly visited with penalty. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
