2017 (7) TMI 899

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... find that the erstwhile section 78, while mandating equal penalty in situations of fraud, suppression of facts etc., did provide for reduction of penalty to 50% where complete transactions are available in specified records - it cannot be denied that complete details of the transactions were available in the records of the appellant, whether in documents or computerized form. Another mitigating factor that has to be noted is that appellant definitely did pay up the tax liability of ₹ 7,50,882/- in March, 2014 itself, although, the show-cause notice was issued much later in October, 2014. The penalty requires to be reduced to 50% of the service tax demand of ₹ 7,50,882/- - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ue of the adjudication order of original authority. He points out that the appellants are in acute financial stress which was the only reason for not being able to discharge their tax liability. For these reasons, he prays for setting aside of the penalties imposed. 3. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative supports the impugned order and points out that, as per section 78 ibid as stood before its substitution w.e.f. 14.05.2015, penalty equal to service tax not discharged was liable to be paid in cases involving fraud, collusion, misstatement etc. He submits that the transitory provisions under section 78 B ibid., will not help the appellant since in this case, both the notice and the order of the original authority w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 6. In the appeal on hand, it is clear from paras 3 to 6 of the order of the original authority that the entire proposal for confirmation of the demand of differential tax liability was worked out only from the records and centralized accounting software maintained by the appellant. This being the case, it cannot be denied that complete details of the transactions were available in the records of the appellant, whether in documents or computerized form. Another mitigating factor that has to be noted is that appellant definitely did pay up the tax liability of ₹ 7,50,882/- in March, 2014 itself, although, the show-cause notice was issued much later in October, 2014. In the light of the aforesaid provisions of law and also keeping in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X