9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A of FA, 1994. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/21829/2016-SM - 22663/2017 - Dated:- 26-10-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Lakshmi Kumaran And Sridharan, Ms. Sandhya Sarvode, Adv. - For the Appellant Shri Parashiva Murthy, AR - For the Respondent ORDER Per: SS GARG The appellant has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 19.10.2016 passed by the commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the activities of consulting engineering services, erection, commissioning and installation services, management maintenance or repair services, BAS, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod July and August 2008 in the month of Dec., 2008 vide SI. No.308 dated 05.01.2009 in the Cenvat Register. In addition to the above, the appellant had vide Challan No.2245 dated 06.02.2013 paid the entire amount of service tax of ₹ 2,21,528/- along with interest of ₹ 1,48,814/- total amounting to ₹ 3,70,342/- even prior to the issue of audit report dated 27.02.2013 and this fact of appellant has been noted in the audit report itself. She further submitted that since the appellant has paid the tax along with interest before the issue of show cause notice and hence the issuance of show cause notice is unwarranted in terms of section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994. She relied upon the decisions in the appellant's own case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich provides that no penalty shall be imposed under the Finance Act, 1994 in case where the service tax along with interest has been paid prior to issuance of show cause notice under section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. 8. On the other hand, Learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that non-payment of service tax has been detected by the audit team and therefore such non-payment of service tax would have gone unnoticed if the audit team had not visited the premises of the appellant and therefore according to the AR, there is a willful suppression of facts by the appellant with an intention to evade payment of service tax. He further submitted that the payment of service tax under section 73(3) is not appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
