9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 787X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee did not dispute the tax liability and started paying the taxes and maximum amount was paid much before the issuance of the show cause notice and an amount of ₹ 8,68,576/- was also paid as interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, for the delay in paying service tax amount. Further, he submits that the option given by the Adjudicating Authority was exercised and 25% of the penalty amount of ₹ 9,67,373/- imposed under Section 78 was also paid to put the entire dispute at rest and to purchase peace of mind. In this appeal, there is no material shown by the department as to how the option given to the respondent is erroneous. In my considered view, the Commissioner (Appeal) is correct in rejecting the appeal filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 (if they would pay such penalty alongwith the service tax short paid and accrued interest within 30 days of the receipt of the Order-in-Original). ii) The Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the Department had appealed on the ground that while the Order-in-Original had found that Service Tax to the tune of ₹ 23,07,385/- (including Cess) was not paid by way of willful mis-statement/suppression with an intent to evade; it had imposed a penalty amounting to ₹ 9,67,373/- only under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, and that the penalty lower than the Service Tax amount confirmed as having been evaded, could not be imposed under Section 78 ibid as held by the Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lar is also applicable to Sec.78 of the Finance Act. The adjudicating authority has erred in passing the impugned Order-in-Original in contradiction to the above Board's Circular. 3. Shri A.Srivastava, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the order of the Adjudicating Authority has dealt the entire issue in details. Further, the assesee's major clients are Tata steel, Jamshedpur. He also submits that it is just a technical error which occurred while filling ST-3 return as regards the value of the taxable services pertaining to previous period for which the duty was paid for the year 2008. That there was no intention of misdeclaring the value of taxable services in the return. That it being a proprietary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
