9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the audit, the audit party informed him that he is liable to pay service tax, then he immediately paid the entire service tax along with interest. Except mere allegation of suppression, the Department did not bring any material on record to prove that there was suppression and concealment of facts to evade payment of tax. Consequently, in my opinion, the imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Act is not justified and bad in law. Moreover, in the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not recorded any finding on suppression of facts by the appellant with an intention to evade tax - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/20111/2014-SM - Final Order No. 20796/2016 - Dated:- 20-9- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... input Cenvat credit of ₹ 90,146/- and interest of ₹ 2,08,861/- and also proposed penalty under Sections 76 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Additional Commissioner vide his order dated 29.8.2011 confirmed the proposal made in the show-cause notice. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who dropped the penalty imposed under Section 76 but upheld the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the present appeal has been filed. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and the judgements relied upon by the appellant cited supra, I find that Section 73(3) is very clear as it says that if tax is paid along with interest before issuance of the show-cause notice, then in that case, show-cause notice shall not be issued. In this case, I find that the contention of the appellant that he bonafide believed that he is not liable to pay service tax but during the audit, the audit party informed him that he is liable to pay service tax, then he immediately paid the entire service tax along with interest. Except mere allegation of suppression, the Department did not bring any material on record to prove that there was suppression and concealment of facts to evade payment of tax. Conse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
