9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R ORDER PER: AJAY SHARMA The present appeal has been filed from the Order-in-Appeal dated 22.01.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) GST, Customs and Central Excise, Bhopal (MP). 2. According to the Counsel for the appellant the appellant is a contractor operating from a remote place near Chhatarpur (MP) and the only issue in this appeal is about the imposition of penalty under Section 78 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 09.08.2017 the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 9,77,425/- was confirmed alongwith interest. Penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Section 77(1)(c)(i) of the Finance Act and penalty of Rs. 9,77,425/-were also confirmed. 4. The Counsel for the appellant informed that the amount of Service Tax of Rs. 6,08,404/- has been deposited by appellant after the passing of the Order-in-Original dated 09.08.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat since the appellant has already paid the amount of service tax therefore the penalty may be dropped. Whereas the ld. AR appearing for the department has reiterated the finding recorded by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order and submitted that the amount of service tax was paid by the appellant after investigation by the Department and that too after the passing of the Order-in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ooperated in the investigation. But it has come on record that they did not corporate with the department nor produced the record for quantification of service tax liability. If the Department did not carry out the investigation then the amount of service tax would not have come into notice of the department. The appellant cannot take the plea that they were under benofide belief because if that h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
