9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1081X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of suppression involved - When penalty has not been imposed on portion of demand on the ground that there is no suppression, in that case it cannot be said that in respect of another portion there has been suppression. Since the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that in respect of portion of demand, the suppression is not applicable, in that case it cannot be alleged for the earlier period p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g. The Appellant with reference to demand of ₹ 14,60,776/- paid the demand amount and also interest as applicable and service tax credit of ₹ 48,893/- alongwith interest. The said payments were made by them before issue of show cause notice dt. 27.05.2015. The adjudicating authority in adjudication order separately confirmed demand of service tax and service tax credit alongwith equiva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 48,893/- of service tax credit) and the 25% penalty came to ₹ 1,72,140/- whereas the Appellant has paid only ₹ 1,60,000/-. He therefore held that since the Appellant has not paid correct penalty the benefit in terms of clause (ii) of the proviso to section 78 is not available to the Appellant. Hence the present appeal by the Appellant. 2. Shri Mayur Shroff, ld, Counsel for the Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Atul Sharma, ld. AC (AR) appearing for the revenue reiterates and support the findings of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Heard both the sides and perused the records of the case. We find that the demand was made against the Appellant pursuant to audit objection and the Appellant immediately paid the amount even before issue of show cause notice. Since the non ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
