9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 78, in respect of the period after 18.4.2006 is required to be re-quantified. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a partnership firm managed by Shri Ismail Haji, Shri Sharaf-Ud-Din, Shri Noushad and Shri Faisal and they are engaged in the export of plywood, import and trading of various products like palm oil, imprex surface film. For the purpose of export of plywood, the appellant purchased the required quantity from manufacturers of plywood in Mangalore and Kerala. Appellant do not have their own factory and they do not carry any manufacturing activity. The Headquarters Preventive being Mangalore, on investigations have found that the appellants have evaded payment of service tax on the Business Auxili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service for the period from 1.1.2005 to 30.9.2006 along with interest of Rs. 63,842/- and also penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78. The adjudicating authority after following the due process of law vide Order-in-Original confirmed the demand of service tax along with interest and imposed penalty of Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 for failure to obtain service tax registration and penalty of Rs. 5,40,618/- under Section 78 of the Act and service tax paid of Rs. 4,05,855/- and Rs. 1,34,763/- and interest of Rs. 63,842/- paid were appropriated towards demand confirmed. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A), who modified the Order-in-Original. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE & ST vs. Adecco Flexione reported in 2012 (26) STR 3 (Kar.) wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court that when the service tax and the interest for the delayed payment is paid before the issue of show-cause notice then as per Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, no notice shall be served against persons who have paid the duty with interest. Learned counsel further submitted that no penalty is imposable when the new charging provisions are introduced recently and the delay in the payment of service tax was during the initial period as was the case in the present case and for this, he relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Kakinada Seaports Ltd. vs. CC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
