9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 948X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), wherein the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, was set aside and directed the lower authority to re-quantify the interest. 2. The Ld. AR reiterates the grounds of appeal. None appears for the respondent. 3. The short issue involved in the present case is that the adjudicating authority in the order demanded only the interest under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by TPT Date of receipt of amt specified in (ii) Service Tax payable on the said amt (Rs.) Actual date of payment of ST specified in (iv) by TPT Due date for payment of ST specified in (iv) No. of days by which the payment of tax had been delayed Interest payable by TPT on the delayed payment @15% upto 09.09.2004 and @13% w.e.f 10.09.2004 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt payable was quantified as Rs. 73,369/-. Taking into the above reworking of the interest amount, there is no infirmity in the order of the appellate authority directing the lower authority to re-quantify the interest. I find that the amount re-quantified by the department is the correct interest amount payable for the delayed payment of service tax. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
