9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue and in less than 7 days on grant of registration under the specific head, no show-cause notice was required to be issued and adjudicated in terms of the clear mandate under Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. Thus, I hold that the show-cause notice is bad in terms of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. ST/396/12 - - - Dated:- 15-9-2014 - Anil Choudhary, J. For the Appellant : Shri Prasad Paranjape, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri B K Iyer, Supdt. (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: Shri Anil Choudhary: This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. AKP/48/NSK/2012 dated 22.03.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise (Appeals), Nasik. 2. The brief fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed against the deposit already made along with interest and as to why not penalty be imposed under Section 7, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.1 The show-cause notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 30.11.2011 whereby the proposed demand of tax and interest was confirmed and appropriated and further penalty was imposed under Section 77(1)(a) of the Finance Act of ₹ 2,62,000/- for delay in obtaining the Service Tax registration for receiving Consulting Engineer's Services from outside India and further penalty of ₹ 5000/- under Section 77(2) of the Act and penalty equal to tax under Section 78 was imposed. 2.2 Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 6.11.2010 under the Consulting Engineer's category. The appellant further states that the very issue of show-cause notice is bad in view of the provisions of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, which provides that it the assessee have deposited the tax with interest either on its own motion or on being so pointed out by the Revenue officer with proper intimation, no further proceedings of adjudication by issue of show-cause notice is called far. The appellant also relies on the ruling of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shantha Satellite Vision- 2009 (13) STR 76 (Tri-Bang) and also on the ruling of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd. 2012 (26 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty levied was set aside. Accordingly, it is prayed for allowing appeal. 4. The learned AR appearing for the Revenue relied on the impugned order and further placed reliance on the ruling of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Baba Asia Ltd. -2011 (267) ELT 115 (Tri-Del), wherein the goods being Tobacco Essences manufactured and captively consumed for manufacture of final product, which was marketable and excisable, it was held that merely because the product is not carried to the market that itself will not be a criteria to hold the product to be non-marketable. It is also not necessary that the product should have more than one purchaser for consumption. In view of the National Calamity Contingent (NCC) d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
