9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /01/2010 - ORDER NO.F/O-77663/2017 - Dated:- 19-9-2017 - Shri P. K. Choudhary, Member ( Judicial ) Shri S. P. Mazumder, Advocate for the Appellant Shri A. Roy, Suptd.(AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Shri P. K. Choudhary 1. Heard both sides and perused the appeal record. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Silico Manganese, Ferro Manganese etc. and obtained Central Excise Registration as well as Service Tax Registration. A Show Cause Notice dated 15.04.2008 was issued proposing demand of service tax for the period 01.01.2005 to 31.01.2006. It has been alleged that the appellant had not paid service tax on GTA service. The adjudicating authority by order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ending before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) The expression any issue if an appeal against such issue is pending before the Commr. Central Excise (Appeals) in Rule 84(4) makes it clear that the Commr. Of Central Excise cannot pass an order in respect of any issue which is pending before the Commr. Of Central Excise (Appeals). In the present case, I find that the issue involved before the Commr. Of Central Excise is in respect of imposition of penalty under Section 76, which was not pending before the Commr. (Appeals). Hence, there is no force in the submission of the ld. Advocate. 4. The next contention of the ld.Counsel is that the exercise of the Revision proceeding is undue interference when the Adjudicating Autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned Order-in-Original, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Service Tax not paid, to the tune of ₹ 8,86,002.00, only after arriving at the conclusion that such amount of Service Tax was payable by the said assessee and that they had failed to pay the same when it was payable. Therefore, penalty under Sec.76 are warranted in the facts circumstances of the case. The assessee have contended that since in the impugned Order-in-Original, penalty has been imposed under Sec.78, separate penalty is not imposable under Sec.76 as there is no scope for imposing double penalty i.e. both under Sec.76 and Sec.78. In their defence, the said assessee has cited several quasi-judicial and judicial decisions. However, the origina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
