9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1501X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal. Since the assessee has paid the penalties under Section 76 and 78 which are not warranted and in view of my discussions above, I partially allow the appeal of the appellant and drop the penalties imposed under Section 76 and 78. Penalties set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - ST/2504/2012 & ST/2785/2012 - 22888-22889/2017 - Dated:- 23-11-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Mr. A.V. Muralidharan, Advocate - For the Assessee Mr. Madrupsaran, AR, Mr. Naveen Kushalappa, AR - For the Revenue ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 29.6.2012 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has set aside the penalty imposed under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is identical, therefore, both the appeals are disposed of by this common order. 4. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order dropping the penalty under Section 76 alone and not dropping the penalty under Section 78 specifically is not sustainable in law. He further submitted that the Commissioner (A) in para 7 of the impugned order has observed that the appellant undertakes repair and maintenance of generators/alternators for various corporate entities under contract. It is observed that the appellant had been filing ST-3 returns regularly. The d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der and the material on record, I find that the Commissioner (A) has categorically observed in his order that there is no suppression on the part of the assessee to attract Section 78. After such an observation, it was incorrect on the part of the learned Commissioner (A) to have imposed the penalty under Section 78 when he was convinced that there is no suppression of fact with intend to evade payment of tax. But the Commissioner (A) has not given any findings after making a detailed discussion under Section 78. Further, dropping the penalty under Section 76 cannot be interfered with at this stage. Further, I also find that the appellant has already paid service tax of ₹ 7,38,873/- and also penalty under Section 78 amounting to ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
