9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one filed by the Revenue and the other filed by M/s. S.A. Enterprises against Order-in-Appeal No. PIII/RP/124/2013 dated 29/04/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune. Vide the impugned order, the learned lower appellate authority has imposed a penalty equivalent to 50% of the service tax amount not paid, that is, Rs. 23,31,524/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sections 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The amounts paid by the appellant towards service tax and interest were appropriated in the order-in-original. The penalty confirmed on the appellant was Rs. 5,000/- under Section 77 of the Act and Rs. 23,31,524/- under Section 78 of the Act. 3. The said order was challenged by the Revenue before the lower appellate authority on the ground that this redu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al if the penalty is paid within thirty days of the receipt of the order, the liability would be only Rs. 5,78,881/- which they had discharged within thirty days of the date of communication of the order and therefore, there is no further liability to penalty. It is also his another alternate plea that the penalty that could be imposed on the appellant would be only 25% of the service tax amount s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l mis-statement, suppression of facts or contravention of any other provisions of the Act with an intent to evade service tax. In the present case, the appellant had collected the service tax amount from his customers but failed to remit the same to the exchequer. It is also on record that the appellant failed to file statutory returns required to be filed by him. This conduct of the appellant cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
