9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 25% in terms of proviso to Section 78 of the Act. The matter needs to be reconsidered - appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/85942/2015 - A/86067/2018 - Dated:- 18-4-2018 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri Suresh Singh, C.A. for Appellant Shri M.K.Sarangi, Jt. Commissioner (A.R) for respondent Per: Ramesh Nair The issue involved in the present case is of service tax demand on the service of manpower recruitment and supply service. 2. Shri Suresh Singh Ld. C.A. appearing on behalf of the appellant concede that the appellant is not contesting the service tax demand except an amount of ₹ 88,083/- which is not payable due to the reason that the adjudicating autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice tax along with interest was substantially paid before the issuance of show cause notice and small amount of interest was paid subsequent to the issue of show cause notice. Considering all these facts, the appellant are not liable for penalty under Section 78 by invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. He placed reliance of the following judgments: (i) Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. M/s. Hills anad Blues 2014-TIOL-2595-HC-KAR-ST (ii) Uttarkhand Van Vikas Nigam Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Muerut-II (iii) Uttarkhand Van Vikas Nigam Vs. Union of India and Others 2014-TIOL-2758-HC-UKHAND-ST 3. Shri M.K. Sarangi, Ld. Joint Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plausible reason shown by the appellant for non-payment of service tax. Therefore prima facie it is the case wherein the penalty under Section 78 should not be imposed. However on close observation of the impugned order, we find that all the above aspects have not been considered by the adjudicating authority while imposing the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act. It is also observed that the adjudicating authority has also not extended the option of reduced penalty of 25% in terms of proviso to Section 78 of the Act. Therefore the matter needs to be reconsidered. In respect of the demand of ₹ 88,083/- and equal penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Act. The adjudicating authority shall after considering the above observatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
