2014 (7) TMI 452

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n filed by the appellant against OIA No. CS/23/SURAT-II/2012, dt.28.02.2012 passed by the first appellate authority.  The issue involved is whether penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 is attracted when appellant paid the entire Service Tax and interest before the issue of show cause notice. 2. Shri Vinay Kansara (Adv.) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that no penalty in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i) Krishna Security & Detective Services Vs CST Ahmedabad 2011 (24) STR 574 (Tri-Ahmd)     (iv) RNS Infrastructure Ltd Vs CCE Belgaum 2011 (22) STR 347 (Tri-Bang) 3. Shri Jitendra Nair, (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that Service Tax, even if paid on 33% of the consideration, was retained by the appellant for a considerable time showing intention to evade payment o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... interest applicable.  It is not coming out of the case records as to how much Service Tax received by the appellant was retained and for how long.  This aspect has to be seen by the adjudicating authority whether the period of retention of Service Tax remitted by the service recipient to the appellant, was reasonable or not, for deciding the quantum of penalty.  As this verification .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X