9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - the appellant is right in asserting that after the issuance of the Order-in-Original, the adjudicating authority became functus officio and therefore he could not have issued the addendum which essentially imposed penalty at least not without notice to it - appeal against the addendum dated 27.09.2001 allowed - Decided in favor of assessee. - APPLICATION NO.ST/MISC/51286/2014-CU[DB], APPEAL NO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not leviable on the amount of surcharge collected for delayed payment of telephone bills. As such the amount of service tax demanded in the present Show Cause Notice is not payable by Telecom Deptt. When the amount of tax demanded is not payable there is no question of charging interest on delayed payment and no question of imposition of penalty. However the Superintendent, Central Excise Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... @ 1.5% (one and a half per cent) for every month- 1(b) The following sentence may be added:- - by which the service tax or any part thereof delayed and penalty of two hundred rupees for every day during which the failure continues but not exceeding the amount of Service Tax that he failed to pay, under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994),:- 2(a) After the sentence in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting the validity of the addendum. 3. Ld. Departmental Representative conceded that the addendum imposing penalty could not have been issued without notice to the appellant and therefore the same cannot be sustained. 4. We have considered the facts of the case and the submissions of both sides. We need not go into the details of the case as the appellant is not contesting the primary adjudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
