9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so since equivalent penalty has been imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. We find that the original adjudicating had already offered the appellant the option to pay 25% of the equivalent penalty imposed under Section 78, subject to the conditions prescribed under the provisions of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, we uphold the impugned order-in-original with regard to imposition of penalty under Section 78. However, we set-aside the penalties imposed under Sections 76 and 70 of the Finance Act, 1994. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. : ST/10071/2014 - ORDER No. A/10036/2016 - Dated:- 15-1-2016 - Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical) For the Petitioner : Shri R. Subramanya, Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing in loss and there was financial difficulty earlier too and that is the reason they could not deposit the service tax. He pleads for non-imposition of penalties. 3. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative for Revenue strongly argues that the appellant had taken service tax registration in October 2007. They did not pay the service tax dues till the investigation was carried out by the officers. He submits that if there was no detection by the departmental officers, the rightful dues to the Government would have been lost. He further submits that appellant had received the full amount from M/s. Philips Electronics India Limited against the services rendered by them which included the service tax component. He draws att ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 and April 2011 to September 2011 that too without payment of Service Tax assessed therein. Further, the appellant has also agreed that they had collected the Service Tax from their customer but had not paid the same during the period from Sept 2007 to Sep. 2010, and that their firm had not filed any ST 3 returns from October 2007 onwards. 10I also find that the appellant has neither disputed the taxability of the services provided by them nor their service tax liabilities on the receipts by them. They have submitted that there was some financial crisis faced by them and currently, the business of the firm was in loss, due to which they were unable to pay the Service Tax as demanded by the Department. In this regard, I note that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the issue in detail, an option to pay 25% of the total penalty imposed under Section 78 was given to the appellants and penalty under Section 76 has been imposed only upto 10.05. 2008 i.e. the date of insertion of proviso (v) to Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, I find that the impugned order has been passed keeping in view all the legal provisions. I have gone through the said order and agree with findings of the adjudicating authority. 12. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the impugned order is justified and accordingly I reject the appeal and uphold the impugned Order in Original. The stay application also stands disposed off in above terms. 5. In the above facts and circumstances of the instant case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
