9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants. - Service Tax Appeal No. 51166/2015 - ST/A/72469/2018-CU[DB] - Dated:- 11-4-2018 - MR ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR ANIL G.SHAKKARWAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Appellant: Sh. Rahul Agarwal, Adv. Respondent: Sh. Pawan Kumar Singh, DR ORDER PER ANIL CHOUDHARY: The present appeal is filed by the assessee- Appellants against the Order-in-Original No. 02/ST/Commissioner/Noida/2014-15 dated 02.06.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise Service Tax, Noida. The period in dispute is January to September, 2009. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee- Appellants, during the period under consideration, were registered as a supplier for various services and provided vario ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hem. The adjudicating authority confirmed the appropriation of the amounts and interest already deposited/reversed (from the CENVAT credit pool account) and imposed penalty of equivalent amount. Being aggrieved, the assessee-Appellants have filed the present appeal. 3. With this background, we have heard Shri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the assessee- Appellants and Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, learned DR for the Department. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee- Appellants submitted that there was no difference in the quantum of amount received by them towards various services and the quantum of Service Tax paid. The adjudicating authority did not find that the assessee- Appellants had failed to discharge its liability of payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d ₹ 4,78,616/- on the balance amount, prior to the issuance of the show-cause notice itself. In the last, he prayed for setting aside of the penalty amount. 5. On the other hand, the learned DR for the Department reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the material available on record, we find that that the assessee- Appellants have preferred the instant appeal only so far as the levy of penalty is concerned. They have not disputed the appropriation of the amounts. The main issue is that, the Department, being in the knowledge of all the facts since 23.11.2009, issued the show cause notice only on 22.03.2013 i.e. after around more than three years which is beyond the period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
