9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not considering the legality and validity of the order-in-original imposing penalties under Sections 76 52,57,748/= and the appeal was restricted to an amount of 4,89,448/= and penalties imposed on the same. The learned Tribunal ought to have restored the appeal with respect to the penalties imposed under Sections 76 47,68,300/. Appeal partly allowed by way of remand. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id an amount of ₹ 47,68,300/=, the Adjudicating Authority appropriated the said amount towards confirmed tax demand of ₹ 52,57,748/= and directed it to pay the remaining sum of ₹ 4,89,448/=. That, the Adjudicating Authority also directed the appellant to pay interest at the prescribed rate on the service tax which was short paid/late paid in terms of Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Adjudicating Authority also passed an order imposing penalty of ₹ 100/= per day for each day during which the appellant [Messrs. SCI International Securities Limited] failed to pay the service tax under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, from the date, the service tax was payable by them. The Adjudicating Authority also imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... larified by the learned Tribunal that the remand would be with respect to the penalty imposed on the entire amount of ₹ 52,57,748/= or not ? And, there was some ambiguity in the order, as in the operative portion of the order, the order of remand was with respect to the demand of balance amount of ₹ 4,89,488/= alongwith interest and penalties [meaning thereby the interest and penalties of ₹ 4,89,448/= only] and as the appeal was against the penalties imposed under Sections 76 and 78 of Finance Act on the entire demand of service tax ie., ₹ 52,57,748/=, the appellant preferred Misc. Application for Rectification of Mistake before the learned Tribunal pointing out that in the Appeal, the appellant had also challenged t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nything on merits with respect to the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority on the remaining amount of ₹ 47,68,300/=. Though it was pointed out in the Application for Rectification of Mistake, the learned Tribunal has still not considered the same. Under the circumstances, there was an error apparent on the face of the record, while disposing of the main appeal in not considering the legality and validity of the order-in-original imposing penalties under Sections 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the entire amount of ₹ 52,57,748/= and the appeal was restricted to an amount of ₹ 4,89,448/= and penalties imposed on the same. The learned Tribunal ought to have restored the appeal with respect to the penalties impose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
