9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the penalty to 25% of the service tax demand is reasonable when taking note of the fact that the appellant has deposited 25% of the penalty to the tune of ₹ 1,89,316/- in the earlier round of adjudication, which in denovo proceedings could have been adjusted towards the interest liability. Instead the appellant has been asked to deposit the interest (revised amount) and 25% of reduced penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2014 was issued proposing to demand the above service tax along with interest and for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the entire demand and imposed penalty of ₹ 3,78,631/- under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 and penalty of ₹ 10,000/- under section 77 of the said Act. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) considering the plea of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce this appeal. 2. The ld. counsel Shri P. Kulasekaran submitted that in the earlier proceedings, the appellant had deposited 25% of the penalty to the tune of ₹ 1,89,316/-. The adjudicating authority failed to adjust the penalty in the denovo proceedings. Further, that there was a delay of 4 days in paying interest of ₹ 1,49,846/-. He submitted that the appellant may be given the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant has deposited 25% of the penalty to the tune of ₹ 1,89,316/- in the earlier round of adjudication, which in denovo proceedings could have been adjusted towards the interest liability. Instead the appellant has been asked to deposit the interest (revised amount) and 25% of reduced penalty by the adjudicating authority. This was indeed burdening of the assessee who has opted to pay up the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
