9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1038X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asily verified the fact as to which demand, this interest relates to but the same has not been specifically verified by the Original Authority and the Commissioner (A) has also not gone in to this aspect and simply confirmed the Order-in-Original. Further, since the appellant has paid the Service Tax prior to the issuance of SCN and also paid the reduced penalty of 15%. In view of this, the imposition of equal penalty under Section 78 is not sustainable in law therefore the said penalty is set aside and with regard to the interest payment made by the appellant, it is to be ascertained whether the said payment relates to the present demand or earlier demand. For this purpose, the matter is remanded back to the Original Authority. Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed appeal before the Commissioner who rejected the appeal. Hence, this appeal. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Act is totally unjust as there was no suppression on the part of the appellant. He further submitted that the appellant paid the Service Tax of ₹ 13,02,881/- based on audit along with interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act amounting to ₹ 2,42,380/- on 21.01.2015 whereas the SCN was issued on 20.10.2015 and served on 24.10.2015. He also su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but relate to some other audit objection but the same has not been categorically brought on record as to which demand, this interest payment has been made by the appellant. The Original Authority could have easily verified the fact as to which demand, this interest relates to but the same has not been specifically verified by the Original Authority and the Commissioner (A) has also not gone in to this aspect and simply confirmed the Order-in-Original. Further, I find that since the appellant has paid the Service Tax prior to the issuance of SCN and also paid the reduced penalty of 15%. In view of this, the imposition of equal penalty under Section 78 is not sustainable in law therefore I set aside the said penalty and with regard to the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
