9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty under Section 77 and 78 by holding that the appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking and suppression cannot be alleged against the Public Sector Undertaking. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that during the course of audit of service tax, it was observed that the assessee wrongly taken excess cenvat credit of Rs. 1,54,007/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Four Thousand and Seven only) and utilized the same for payment of service tax during the period from April to September, 2006. On being pointed out by the Audit team, they paid an amount of Rs. 27,502/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Five Hundred and Two only) but did not pay the interest for the said amount. 2.1. This culminated in the issuanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intent to avail and utilize the ineligible credit and the original authority in his order has held that the appellant had suppressed the facts from the Department and confirmed the demand along with interest and penalties under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act. He further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order while setting aside the penalties imposed under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act has given a finding that the appellants are a PSU and suppression cannot be allowed as there will not be any gain by suppressing the facts from another wing of the same Government. Learned counsel further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has given a clear finding that allegation of suppression of facts is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... September 2006 and the show-cause notice was issued only on 19.04.2011 by invoking extended period of limitation by alleging suppression of facts. Further I also find that as far as suppression is concerned, the Commissioner (Appeals) has categorically held that there is no suppression in this case and therefore he has given the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act to the appellant and it is also a fact that the appellant is a PSU and suppression cannot be alleged against a PSU and in support of this submission, the appellant has relied upon the decisions cited supra. Therefore, once suppression cannot be alleged then extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in view of the decisions cited supra. Therefore, by fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
