9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they had already paid the balance of demand of ₹ 7,25,444/- as well as the penalty imposed under Section 77. It is their case that they have not been given the option of reduced penalty in terms of proviso to Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. It is correct that the Commissioner has not given the benefit of reduced penalty (25% of the demand of service tax) to the respondent. The penalty imposed under Section 78 needs to be reconsidered for which we deem it fit to remand the matter to the Commissioner - appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/552/2009 - 42997/2017 - Dated:- 9-11-2017 - Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR), for the Appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugan, AC, submitted that the total demand of service tax confirmed ₹ 3,53,35,047/-, the respondent had collected the service tax and had failed to remit the same to the Government. Therefore, equal penalty under Section 78 ought to have been imposed whereas, the Commissioner has wrongly restricted the penalty to an amount of ₹ 1,81,89,701/- thereby giving a deduction of the amount that has been paid by the respondent prior to the issuance of the SCN. He argued that as per sub-section 3 of Section 73, only if the entire service tax is paid prior to the issuance of SCN, the penalties can be set aside. That Section 78 mandates imposition of equal amount of penalty and therefore the Commissioner has erred in imposing a reduced penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ₹ 1,68,91,742/- was paid by them through challans before issuance of SCN and they had also paid interest of ₹ 33,72,778/- that department failed to acknowledge the entire payment of service tax and notice was issued on 02.03.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner 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 ₹ 1,71,45,346/- before issue of SCN, the adjudicating authority reduced the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, to this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
