9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ices and business support services. They failed to discharge service tax liability on due dates, as per Section 68 read with Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, entire service tax was paid, along with interest, although belatedly, before issuance of show cause notice, which fact has been admitted in the impugned Order also. On commercial training and coaching services, the appellants paid service tax, after excluding the value of books and other study materials supplied/sold to the students during the course of providing such training and coaching services, in terms of Notn.No.12/2003-ST. Adjudicating Authority held that benefit of said Notification is available and thus the Appellants have paid entire service tax liability on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants have filed ST-3 Returns and also paid late fees of Rs. 2,000/- each (aggregating to Rs. 6,000/-) for the delay in filing such Returns, penalty under Rule 7C of STR is also not sustainable. The Counsel has also given written submissions narrating the gist of arguments made during the course ofhearing, which is also taken on record. 4. Learned Authorised Representative for the Department made various submissions taking support from the show-cause notice and impugned Order and also submitted that penalty under Section 76 is sustainable irrespective of whether suppression etc. was there or not, unlike penalty under Section 78, for which he relied on the judgments in the cases of Standard Dry Cleaners - 2014 (36) STR 1058 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, penalties should not have been imposed by the adjudicating authority, based on various case laws on the issue. We also find that since the appellants have paid late fees of Rs. 2,000/- each for delay in filing, which is more than the penalty imposed under Rule 7C of STR, the penalty imposed under Rule 7C is also not sustainable. 5.1 We find that the ratio of judgment in the case of Standard Dry Cleaners (supra) relied upon by the Ld. AR is not applicable to the present case, as in that case it was held that on holistic reading of the Order-in-Original as well as Order-in-Appeal it was abundantly clear that having imposed penalty under Section 78, penalty under Section 76 was not imposable, as it would tantamount to imposition of double ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
