9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to September' 2013. It was also proposed to appropriate the said service tax demand against the amount deposited by them. An amount of Rs. 3,83,973/- which was availed by them as cenvat credit was also proposed to be recovered on the ground that the Appellant had accrued cenvat credit on input services amounting to Rs. 5,07,511/- for the period January' 2011 to March' 2015 out of which Rs. 3,83,973/- was self adjusted for the period from January' 2013 to September' 2013 which is not available to them as they have not claimed the cenvat credit against the input services in their respective ST - 3 Returns for utilization of the same towards the payment of their service tax liability. The notice also proposed interest under section 75 and pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... radesh in case of M/s Manthena Satyanarana Charitable Trust Vs. UOI 2017 (3) G.S.T.L. 213 (A.P.) that they are also eligible for the exemption from payment of service tax in terms of Exemption Notification No. 25/2012 - ST. He also submits that they had deposited the entire amount of service tax along with interest. The service tax was neither collected by them from their clients which shows that they were under bonafide belief that they are eligible for the exemption. He submits that the penalty imposed against them not be sustained as they had no intention to evade the service tax. 3. Shri Dilip Shinde, ld. AC (AR) appearing for the revenue submits that in earlier period also the Appellant did not pay service tax on the impugned service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Notification supra and the service tax demand has been correctly made. As regard penalty u/s 77 (1) (a) imposed upon the Appellant is concerned I find that as the Appellant has obtained service tax registration the penalty has been rightly confirmed. Similarly the penalty under Section 70 read with rule 7C for late return filing has also been correctly imposed. As regard penalty u/s 78 I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has already granted waiver of penalty amount of 50%. In such circumstances we do not find any reason to reduce the penalty further. In view of our above findings, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order. I thus uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal filed by the Appellant. (Pronounced in cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
