2015 (9) TMI 419

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... original dated 9th October, 2012 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Mumbai. 2. Mr. Jetly appearing for the Revenue submits that the Appeal raises substantial question of law. In that regard, our attention is invited to page 7 of the Appeal paper book. 3. Mr. Jetly submits that the Tribunal overlooked the fact that the penalty was not restricted by law to the sum of Rs. 10 crores. If the intention of the Tribunal was to hold that the penalty could not have been imposed and beyond Rs. 10 crores, then, it would not have sustained the substantive order of the Commissioner. Our attention is invited by Mr. Jetly to the substantive order of the Commissioner in that regard, styled as the order-in-original. 4. On the oth .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ication thereunder and the Commissioner concluded that whether the Assessee is entitled to the benefit of payment of reduced penalty of 25% in terms of the first proviso to Section 78, he has to decide the quantum of penalty under Section 78. After reproducing Section 78 with the applicable proviso, what the Commissioner has done thereafter is to render a finding that the redetermination of quantum of penalty under Section 78 has become necessary because the amount of Service Tax liable to be confirmed has undergone change. The earlier order of the Commissioner confirmed the Service Tax demand. That is now required to be changed because of the direction to recompute or recalculate the tax liability. The minimum penalty that is required to b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d at page 153 of the Appeal paper book. Hence, if the Assessee is required to pay the balance of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 3,62,80,398/- and appropriate interest under Section 75 on the total amount confirmed under this order less the amount already paid and the differential penalty under Section 78 which is 25% of the Service Tax demand confirmed, less 25% of the Service Tax demand confirmed under the earlier order and already paid, then, the Assessee would get the benefit of reduced penalty. It is this computation which has been reflected in the operative order in para 14. That order has been complied with by the Assessee and as certified by the Commissioner at page 162 of the Appeal paper book. 7. In these circumstances, when al .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X