9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 04.01.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), GST & Central Excise, Nagpur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is registered with the Service Tax Department for providing various taxable services defined under the Finance Act, 1994. During the course of audit of records maintained by the appellant for the dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how-cause notice was appropriated in the said order. The adjudication order also imposed penalty under section 78 of the Act on the appellant. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 04.01.2018 has upheld the adjudged demand confirmed on the appellant. 3. The Ld. Consultant appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is not contesting the service tax alo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gal service, the appellant did not pay the service tax amount into the Central Government account. However, on pointing out the mistake by the audit wing, the service tax amount towards such taxable service was paid before issuance of the show-cause notice. I also find that there were divergent views by the judicial forums with regard to levy of service tax on such taxable service. Further, the De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discrepancy by the department, the service tax amount was deposited by the appellant before initiation of the show-cause proceedings. It is an undisputed fact that the Department has not brought on any tangible evidence to prove involvement of the appellant in fraudulent activities. Therefore, I am of the view that penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Act cannot be sustained. 7. In view of abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
