9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartment thereafter appellant paid the entire service tax along with interest from her own pocket in spite of the fact that the client of the appellant refused to pay the service tax to her. The imposition of penalty of 15% under Section 78 is not applicable in the present case, because in the present case, the entire service tax along with interest was paid two years before the issue of show-cause notice whereas reduced penalty under Section 78 is applicable if payment is made within 30 days from the date of show-cause notice. Penalties do not sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/21586/2018-SM - Final Order No. 21793/2018 - Dated:- 26-11-2018 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Dayananda.K, CA, Vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 016. Thereafter, appellant approached their customer and requested them to pay service tax but their client did not pay the service tax on the ground that they were exempt being a charitable institution. Thereafter, the appellant paid the entire taxes from her pocket on 28.3.2014 and 17.7.2014 respectively, ₹ 10 lakh and ₹ 16.52 lakh. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued demanding service tax along with penalties. After due process, the original authority confirmed the demand and appropriated the amount paid along with interest and also imposed penalties under Section 77, 78 and under Rule 7(C). Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) giving various reasons for taking a lenient view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... construction services provided to them. He further submitted that penalty under Section 78 can be imposed only if the payment is made within 30 days from the date of show-cause notice. Whereas in the present case, the payment was made in 2014 and the show-cause notice was issued in 2016 and therefore, reduced penalty is not applicable in the present case. He further submitted that the case of appellant is fit for giving the benefit under Section 80 because there was reasonable excuse for not paying the service tax because the client of the appellant has specifically told the appellant that they are not liable to pay service tax but in spite of that she paid the entire service tax along with interest from her own pocket. 5. On the other h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
