9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 22.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that M/s. Poovath Paree Sons was a partnership firm with 12 partners including the appellant, all others were his relatives and sleeping partners only, the appellant himself looked after the day-to-day affairs of the firm. They had paid Service Tax under cargo handling service up to 31.03.2009 and from 01.04.2009 onwards; they had not paid Service Tax on the services rendered by them. They had collected Service Tax from their clients and the receipts were a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tner of the appellant was sick and was hospitalized from 26.09.2009 to 30.08.2010. He further submitted that as soon as the Preventive pointed out the non-payment, the appellant paid the entire Service Tax amounting to ₹ 42,03,791/- and interest of ₹ 5,18,995/- much before the issuance of SCN and the same was also appropriated as mentioned in the SCN. He further submitted that the Order-in-Original dated 30.12.2014 was received by the appellant on 16.01.2015 and the appellant, on 12.02.2015, paid 25% of the penalty. He further submitted that since there was no suppression of facts and entire Service Tax along with interest was paid before the issuance of SCN, no penalty should have been imposed as there was no suppression of fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He further submitted that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act as they had collected the Service Tax and not paid the same. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record and the decisions relied upon by the appellant cited supra, I find that Service Tax in this case was not paid in spite of the fact that it has been collected from the customers and the same was paid after being pointed out by the Department along with interest; and it is a fact that it was paid before the issuance of SCN and the same was appropriated as per the SCN itself. Further, I find that the appellant has also paid 25% of the penalty amount within 30 days but the authoritie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
