9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hout any proper quantification given in the said letter - case remanded back to the original authority to quantify the interest payable and communicate to the appellant for compliance - appeal disposed off. - ST/20809/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20043/2019 - Dated:- 11-1-2019 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Shyam Narayan, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Madhup Sharan, Asst. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 13.2.2018 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) dismissed the appeal of the appellant on limitation without going into the merits of the case. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke cognizance of the fact that the Superintendent of Service Tax pointed out the variation in the interest only on 6.12.2016 after 76 days from the date of intimation and again without furnishing proper worksheet quantifying the interest. He further submitted that from the date of receipt of the letter from the Superintendent which is dated 6.12.2016 the appeal was filed on 23.2.2017 and the appeal was very much within the period of limitation. He further submitted that vide letter dated 23.9.2016, the appellant intimated the department regarding the payment of entire service tax liability along with voluntary computation and payment of interest and reduced penalty @ 25% of the service tax liability confirmed, though in the absence of deter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled within 76 days from the date of receipt of the letter dated 6.12.2016, which is within condonable period of 30 days and therefore, I condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (A). Further, I find that the letter dated 6.12.2016 demanding interest for the delayed payment of service tax to the tune of ₹ 37,76,801/- is without any proper quantification given in the said letter. In view of the decisions relied upon by the appellant cited supra, I am of the view that it is the duty of the department to give proper quantification of the interest which is payable by the appellant, which has not been done in this case. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I remand the case back to the original authority to quantify ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
