9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsed and also having taken again for the second time points out that there is some adverted mistake on the part of the appellant - penalty upheld - however, benefit of reduced penalty of 25% granted. Non-payment of service tax under reverse charge mechanism for the period March 2009 to May 2009 - penalty - Held that: - taking into consideration that there was only delay in discharging the liability of service tax, we are of the view that the penalty on this issue requires to be set aside - penalty set aside. Appeal allowed in part. - E/Misc./40028/2018 and E/697/2010 - Final Order No. 40418 / 2018 - Dated:- 12-2-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Ms. Sweta Girida ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmed the demand, interest and imposed equal penalty. However, benefit of reduced penalty as provided in proviso (1) and (2) of section 78 of the Finance Act was allowed. Aggrieved, the appellants are now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Ms. Sweta Giridar submitted that the appellant is not contesting the demand of service tax or the interest thereof. She submitted that with regard to the first issue the appellant has paid the demand and interest thereof even prior to issue of show cause notice. That the appellant is praying for setting aside the penalty. With regard to the second issue, the appellant had paid the tax amount to the tune of ₹ 5,62,172/- along with interest and also paid 25% penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Issue Involved Tax amount paid Interest amount paid Penalty amount paid Non-payment of service tax under RCM for the period May 2008 to Feb. 2009 1,27,59,703 13,58,421 31,89,925 (25% penalty paid prior to passing of the impugned order) Availment of CENVAT credit twice on the same bill of entry 5,62,172 2,43,274 1,40,543(25% paid within 30 days of receipt of order under protest) Non-payment of service tax under RCM for the period March 2009 to May 2009 26,31,769 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having taken again for the second time points out that there is some adverted mistake on the part of the appellant. For this reason, we do not find any ground to set aside the penalty in respect of this issue. However, the order passed by the original authority granting benefit of reduced penalty of 25% of tax paid is upheld. The penalty on this issue will stand discharged as the appellant has paid 25% of tax demand pursuant to the Order-in-Original. 7. The third issue is with regard to service tax demand, interest and penalty in respect of non-payment of service tax under reverse charge mechanism for the period March 2009 to May 2009. The appellant does not contest the service tax demand or the interest thereof. The appellant is aggrie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
