9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arges for the services but also service tax liability thereon. Even so, they have not remitted the said liability to the exchequer - the appellant certainly has not come out with clean hands to this forum and hence the appeal for extension of CUM duty benefit is not merited and hence not acceded to - demand of tax and interest upheld. With reference to penalty under Section 78, the same is modi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000 to September 2005. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant Shri V.J. Shankaram submitted that the appellants had paid up the amount of ₹ 7,46,268/- along with education cess thereon, before the issuance of show cause notice and subsequently other deposits after issue of Order-in-Original as such, out of the total confirmed tax amount of ₹ 56,88 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of his 3 order. In the circumstances, the appellant certainly has not come out with clean hands to this forum and hence the appeal for extension of CUM duty benefit is not merited and hence not acceded to. However, on the plea concerning quantum of penalty, it is seen that the adjudicating authority has imposed an equal amount of penalty of ₹ 56,88,806/- under Section 78 of Finance Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f penalty under Section 76 ibid. (v)With reference to penalty under Section 78, the same is modified to 25% of the service tax demanded provided, the appellant says up the entire duty liability with interest along with reduced penalty within a month of this order. (iv) As penalty under Section 78 is confirmed, there shall be no further penalty under Section 76 of finance Act, 1994. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
