9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent it was noticed that for the period from October, 2006 to July, 2008, the respondent had not discharged their service tax liability. A SCN was issued for recovery of service tax to the tune of Rs. 3,53,35,047/- for the said period along with interest and also imposing penalties. After due process of law, the Commissioner confirmed the said demand along with interest and appropriated an amount of Rs. 3,46,09,603/- paid by the appellant and ordering for recovery of balance of Rs. 7,25,444/- to be paid by the assessee. Taking into consideration that respondent had paid Rs. 1,71,45,346/- before issue of SCN and Rs. 1,74,64,257/- after issue of SCN but before passing the impugned order, the penalty under Section 78 was limited to an amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26.08.2008 1446480 26.08.2008 337446 16.09.2008 1381294 16.09.2008 318303 23.09.2008 1565926 23.09.2008 349695 26.09.2008 1216121 26.09.2008 258151 29.09.2008 1358658 29.09.2008 276310 29.09.2008 1572955 29.09.2008 303085 28.10.2008 1452798 02.03.2009 279932 28.10.2008 1230583 02.03.2009 223528 26.11.2008 1334601 02.03.2009 241947 26.11.2008 1527283 02.03.2009 260015 28.02.2009 1296064 28.02.2009 249732 28.02.2009 1508979 28.02.2009 274634 TOTAL 16891742 TOTAL 3372778 It is submitted by the respondent that an amount of Rs. 1,68,91,742/- was paid by them through challans before issuance of SCN and they had also paid interest of Rs. 33,72,778/- that department failed to acknowledge the ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the department is that the Commissioner did not impose penalty (Rs.3,53,35,047/-) equal to that of the service tax demand. On going through the impugned order, it is seen that the respondent had raised strong contentions explaining for failure to discharge the service tax within due time. It was submitted by them that they could not make timely payment due to financial hardship as they had to first make payment to their employees. This was not considered by the adjudicating authority as a reasonable cause for invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, by taking note of the fact that the respondent had paid an amount of Rs. 1,71,45,346/- before issue of SCN, the adjudicating authority reduced the penalty imposed under Section 78 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
