9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the Appellant on this point is accepted. Penalty - Held that:- According to the Appellant they are entitle for refund of the excess amount of ₹ 4,61,624/-. If that is so i.e. if the amount so deposited by the appellant before the issuance of show cause notice satisfy the demand of the amount of service tax from October, 2006 to March, 2011 along with interest for the period from Octo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant submitted that the ld. Commissioner of Central Tax, Appeals-I, although held that the demand for the period 2005-06 as raised in the Show Cause Notice dated 24.10.2011 was barred by limitation, but still uphold the interest on the amount of service tax for the said period and rejected the contention of the appellant that the interest is not payable for the time barred period. He further su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts are undisputed that neither the appellant deposited the service tax within due date nor filed the statutory ST-3 returns before the concerned authority during the period in question despite the fact that they were rendering services in relation to the construction of commercial or industrial buildings and civil structures for various clients. Thus, for these reasons there is a clear case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty i.e. 25% thereof, if the interest and penalty confirmed is paid within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of the order. Since I have set aside the interest for the period from April, 2005 to September, 2006, therefore according to the Appellant, the amount already deposited with the department is ₹ 15,87,624/- whereas the liability of service tax for the period from Oct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
