9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appellant in not remitting the service tax. Section 80 makes it very clear that the penalty u/s 76 & 77 is not automatic, which definitely overrides both the provisions of Section 76 as well as Section 77. It is also not in dispute that the appellant had paid nearly 80% of the tax amount before the issuance of SCN - The appellant had made out a case and that it is a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 80 especially in view of the fact that the appellant has not contested the service tax liability and interest thereon - penalty set aside. Part matter on remand and part in favor of assessee. - ST/MISC/41041/2017 & ST/40047/2017 - Final Order No. 41555/2018 - Dated:- 21-5-2018 - Hon ble P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nance Act, 1994. The appellant-assessee chose not to reply to the SCN and it is a matter of record that the appellant did not avail the personal hearing for the reasons given in the OIO. The adjudicating authority thereafter proceeded to pass the order on merits vide OIO dated 12.05.2015. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand as also the interest and penalties as proposed in the SCN. The appellant having not met with success in his first appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), is before this forum. 3. The main grievance of the appellant with regard to the demand of interest is that the computation made by the adjudicating authority is incorrect which should have been as per the computation provided before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after the issuance of SCN for which even the interest was also paid by him. In support of his contention, the appellant has furnished ledger copy to prove his bonafides as regards his contention that he had not collected service tax from his tenant. The appellant also relies on the orders of the Ahmedabad Bench and Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of M/s. Avas Engineers Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad 2013-TIOL-751-CESTAT-AHM, M/s. Chandresh Shantilal Shal 3 Ors. Vs. CCE ST, Vadodara 2014-TIOL-196-CESTAT-AHM and M/s. Arvind Processors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE ST, Kolhapur 2015-TIOL-2398-CESTAT-MUM. 6. On the other hand, Ld. AR vehemently contended that when there is a glaring admission of liability, the penalty has to follow and also h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
