9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t against order-in-original Nos. 78-79/2011 (Ahd-III)/D-Singh/Commar.(A)/Ahd, dated 9-6-2011, under which appeals filed by the appellant and the Revenue against order-in-original No. 06/ADC(SC)2011, dated 17-1-2011 passed by Additional Commissioner Central Excise Ahmedabad-III, confirmed a demand of ₹ 3,52,306/- and imposed penalties u/s. 76 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The total amount de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 994. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant on the date of hearing fixed for 23-8-2013 but appellant vide letter dated 21-8-2013 requested for more time as their Chartered Accountant wants to file more written submissions. It is observed that the case is being listed for final hearing from January, 2013 onwards and more than 6 months time has lapsed which was sufficient for the appellant a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntioned that appellant has not forwarded any valid reason for invocation of provisions of Section 80. However, it is seen from the facts available in para 6.2 of the show cause notice dated 19-10-2010 that Sh. B. Patel, Proprietor of the appellant has submitted that to the best of their judgment Service Tax liabilities was discharged by the appellant and remaining amount pointed out by the audit w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ying the Service Tax liability wrongly. There can be reasonable cause on the part of the appellant that he discharged his Service Tax liability to the best of his ability and also paid the differential amount as soon as determined by the audit officers/adjudicating authority/first appellate authority. In view of the above observations this is a fit case for non-imposition of penalties u/s. 76 78 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
