9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 721X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and leading evidence. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. - ST/328/2011-ST[SM] - A/70613/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 30-6-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) None for Appellant Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh, Deputy Commissioner (AR) Shri Gyanendra Tripathi, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The appellant is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.229-ST/APPL/NOIDA/10 dated 29/07/2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise Customs (Appeals), Noida, wherein the learned commissioner (Appeals) have pleased to confirm the duty imposed, but have been pleased to set aside the penalty under Section 76 of the Act, observing that the penalty under Section 78 have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting into short levy of service tax of ₹ 9,50,101/-. It further appeared that they have not filed the services return for the half-year October07 to March08 in due time, and also not paid the service tax for the said half-year by the due date. The tax for the said half-year appeared to be paid ₹ 52,140/- on 27.02.2008, and ₹ 7,72,906/- on 24.04.2008 with interest of ₹ 76,746/-. The SCN also recognizes these payments and states that the balance tax recoverable, on the date of notices is only ₹ 1,25,055/-. Accordingly, show cause, was for an amount of ₹ 9,50,101/-, be not demanded as short paid and further the amount already deposited of ₹ 8,25,046/- be not appropriated invoking the extended period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department that tax liability is on the gross amount, they have deposited the entire tax with interest and also pleaded that the appellant is semiliterate and have studied only up to class-8, and could not prevail over the industrial clients and the Chartered Accountants and their qualified Managers. Appellant also prayed for dropping of the penalties, levied under the various sections. It has been also pleaded that the appellant could not file reply and make a proper appearance, as after receipt of the SCN, they were pursuing their clients to provide the details and/or copy of the documents which were provided to them after much delay and they could not file a proper defence reply to the show cause notice. For the same reason they could n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidered the rival contentions, I find that the show cause notice is bad to the extent of demand of ₹ 8,25,046/-, which was admittedly paid before the issue of show cause notice. Accordingly, I hold that the show cause notice, to this extent is not sustainable and accordingly, no penalty is also imposable on this amount, under any of the sections. So far, the balance demand of ₹ 1,25,055/-is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority, for redetermination, in accordance with law, after providing opportunity to the appellant of being heard and leading evidence. The appellant is also directed to appear, before the adjudicating authority, with a copy of this order and their reply for seeking opportunity of h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
