9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .B. Kulgod, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No: AKP/146/NSK/2011 dated 30/06/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nasik. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is regarding whether interest can be demanded under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h 2008 and 18th March 2010. Neither the appellant nor the department raised any issue regarding correctness or otherwise of the computation of the service tax liability. On being reminded by the department to pay the interest, the appellant did not pay the interest. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 28/12/2010 was issued for demand of interest and also for imposing penalties. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch amount and hence the demand of interest and penalties appears to be bad in law. He would rely upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Siddaganga Cements (P) Ltd 2010-TIOL-CESTAT-BANG. For non-imposition of penalties, he would also submit that Board's Circular dated 18/12/2006 needs to be considered which clarified that the show cause notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unts paid by them as in the assessee friendly atmosphere an assessee is entitled to ascertain service tax liability on his own and deposit the same, even if pointed out by the lower authorities. In the absence of any protest to such payment, we have to hold that the amount paid by the appellant is towards service tax liability as determined by him. 7.2. Secondly, the arguments of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
