9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty of ₹ 2,000/-. Since the returns have been filed with the penalty, therefore, there is no justification for imposing penalty under Section 77(2) of the Act. Penalty imposed under Section 78 - Held that: - in the present case, the Assistant Commissioner has imposed equal penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and has not afforded an opportunity to pay 25% of Service Tax as penalty within a period of 30 days as per the proviso to Section 78 as applicable during the relevant time - in view of the fact that there was no inordinate delay in payment of service tax along with interest by the assesse, the ends of justice will be met, if the appellant is directed to pay 25% of Service Tax as penalty. Appeal allowed - deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner (A) on the ground that they have paid service tax along with interest much before the issue of show-cause notice and there was no deliberate intention to evade tax, therefore, no penalty should be imposed on them. After considering their submissions, the Commissioner (A) rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the binding judicial precedent. He further submitted that the appellant has been regularly paying service tax and has been filing returns from time to time and the default in the present case was only for the period April 2010 to November ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat there was delay of more than six months in depositing the service tax along with interest in the present case. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: CST vs. Virtual Marketing (I) Pvt. Ltd.: 2017 (49) STR 577 (Tri.-Mumbai) Ketan Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST: 2014 (36) STR 196 (Tri.-Ahmd.) Ronak Shipping vs. UOI: 2016 (41) STR 420 (Guj.) Bajrang Security Services vs. CST: 2010 (19) STR 577 (Tri.-Ahmd.) Triton Communication Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2007 (6) STR 58 (Tri.-Mum.) Sai Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore: 2006 (203) ELT 15 (MP) Final Order No.21291 21293/2017 dated 25.7.2017 in the case of Rovian Tourists Promotions Other vs. CCE, Mangalore. 6. Aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of service tax along with interest by the assesse, I am of the view that ends of justice will be met, if the appellant is directed to pay 25% of Service Tax as penalty. Accordingly, I order that the appellants are liable to pay 25% of the duty as penalty and the said penalty should be deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed except to the extent of reduction of penalty to 25% of the service tax amount, if the same is paid within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and also setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 77(2). If it is not paid within one month, then the appellant would be liable to pay the entire p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
