9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amounts by the appellant and whether the penalties imposed under Sections 70, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act and Rule 15(3) of CCR have been rightly imposed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in providing 'cable operator services' and space or time selling service for advertisements. Appellants charged and collected service tax and discharged the liability, mainly through Cenvat Credit. Show Cause Notice date 20.10.2015 was issued for the extended period of limitation for the period from 2010-11 to 2013-14 proposing the demand of service tax Rs. 2,14,39,834/- on forward charge basis including Rs. 7,411/- on reverse charge basis on legal services to disallow Cenvat Credit on input services on the ground that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was inserted w.e.f. 06.08.2014 and it cannot be applied to the invoices issued earlier to 06.08.2014. (v) Appellants case is covered by following decisions:- - CCE vs. Ram Swarup Electricals Ltd. reported at 2007 (217) ELT 12 - Industrial Cables vs. CCE reported at 2009 (236) ELT 658. - Bharat Wagon & Engg. Co. Ltd. vs. CCE reported at 2001 (131) ELT 681. - Ajay Industrial Corporation vs. CCE reported at 2002 (147) ELT 786. - ITW Signode India Ltd. vs. CCE reported at 2003 (158) ELT 406 (SC). B. The Commissioner has confirmed demand of Rs. 2,14,39,834/-. Appellants in its defence reply had contended that their liability would be Rs. 2,13,78,037/-. The difference of Rs. 61,800/- is on account of taking signal fee as Rs. 3,83 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l mistake in final account was noticed by appellants subsequently. Appreciating the mistake as same is evident from the record and books of account maintained on ordinary course of business, we set aside the demand of difference amount of Rs. 61,997/- . We further notice that the demand has arisen mainly due to disallowance of Cenvat Credit which we have now allowed. Under such facts and circumstances we observe that there is no deliberate defiance of the provision of law nor there is any act of suppression on the part of the appellant and the transaction was recorded in the books of accounts ordinarily maintained in the course of business, therefore, we set aside the penalties under Sections 77(1)(b), 77(1)(c)(i), 77(1)(c)(iii), 77(2) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
