9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 717X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the common impugned order dated 31.01.2014 whereby the Commissioner has rejected the appeal of the appellant and confirmed the Order-in-Original. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is identical, therefore both the appeals are being disposed of by this present order. The details of both the appeals are given herein below: Appeal No. Period Service Tax (incl. cess) involved Interest Penalty (Rs.) 12/ST/TVM/2011 01.11.2007 to 30.11.2008 11,01,165/- u/s 73(1) u/s 75 1000/- u/s 77 11,01,165/- u/s 78 13/ST/TVM/2011 01.12.2008 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the evidence on record. He further submitted that the appellant could not pay the service tax in time on account of financial difficulties. He further submitted that he had a dispute with the Income Tax Department and huge refunds were due to the appellant from the Income Tax Department which was not paid in time. He further submitted that the delay in remittance of ST was not willful and was beyond the control of the appellant. He further submitted that the appellant paid a sum of ₹ 3,05,292/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Five Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Two only) on 30.03.2009 i.e. even before the service of the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e contended that the dispute with the Income Tax Department and the huge amount of TDS collected from them and huge refund cases pending with the IT department had put them in financial constraints resulting in delay of payment of service tax. The appellant himself has admitted the very fact and submitted that they had already paid a sum of ₹ 3,05,292/- on 30.03.2009. i.e. even before the service of the show-cause notice. But the same had been paid only after the initiation of the departmental action. The amount paid had also been appropriated by the adjudicating authority vide the impugned order. Appellant could not produce any proof or case laws in support of their claim. Hence I find that the demands have risen based on the investi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
