9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not brought any evidence to show that there was suppression on the part of the appellant - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/27667/2013-SM - Final Order No. 22725/2017 - Dated:- 7-11-2017 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ms. Neethu James, Adv. For the Appellant Shri Naveen Kushalappa, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 10.06.2013 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has imposed equal penalty under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that it was observed by the audit team that the appellants had not made payment of service tax on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... course of audit proceedings. She further submitted that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered under section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994 which provides that when the service tax along with interest is paid before the issue of show cause notice, then show cause notice should not have been issued. For this submission, she relied upon the following decisions: Commissioner of Central Excise Visakhapatnam-II vs. M/s. Tirupathi Fuels Pvt Ltd 2016-TIOL-2311-CESTAT-Hyd; Veriton Software Solution Pvt Ltd vs. Comissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Mysore 2015-TIOL-533-CESTAT-Bang. 7. She further submitted that there is no suppression on the part of the appellant and the non-payment of service tax on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on record and the various decisions cited supra, I find that the appellant has paid the service tax liability immediately on pointing out the same by the audit and the appellant has paid the service tax along with interest prior to the issue of show cause notice and therefore as per the decision cited supra, the case of the appellant is covered under section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994. Further, I find that the revenue has not brought any evidence to show that there was suppression on the part of the appellant. Further, I find that the service tax liability in the present case was on reverse charge basis and the situation is revenue neutral and in view of the above decision, no penalty can be imposed when the situation is revenue neutral. Fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
