9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccount of the fact that the appellant did not receive the funds and the amount of service tax from their clients. In the above factual matrix, we are of the view that no malafide intention can be attributed to the appellant. However, no malafide intention can be attributed to the appellant. The bonafide nature of the appellant is evident from the fact that the entire amount of service tax alongwith applicable interest stands paid by the appellant even before the impugned Order of adjudication was received by them. It is appropriate to waive the penalties imposed under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 by taking recourse to Section 80 - demand with interest upheld - appeal allowed in part. - Service Tax Appeal No. ST/5565 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand of ₹ 51,62,111/- an amount of ₹ 47,38,000/- was already paid by the appellant. The above amount included the service tax paid by the appellant before issue of SCN. The adjudicating authority further imposed penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. This Order is under challenge in the present Appeal. 3. In this connection, heard Shri Mudit Jain, Ld. CA for the appellant and Shri R.K. Majhi, Ld. DR for the Department. 4. The submissions of the Ld. CA are summarized below: (i) it was submitted that the total service tax liability alongwith interest already stands paid. He submitted that even though the full amount of tax stands paid by the appellant even before SCN the adjudicating authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2003 (161) E.L.T. 346 (Tri. Del.) 5. The Ld. DR justified the impugned order. He submitted that the adjudicating authority has recorded detailed findings of the fact that the appellant had recovered the service tax from their customers but at the same time, did not deposit such service tax collected, to the Government account. He argued that this accounted to suppression of facts. (i) Ld. DR further submitted that adjudicating authority has discussed the claim of the appellant that the transactions were recorded in their balance sheet which was a public document. He submitted that the adjudicating authority has declined the plea of the appellant that the balance sheet is a public document and as such he submitted that the plea of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id; however we direct the adjudicating authority to verify the relevant challans and convince themselves of the same. 7. The interest liability has also been discharged in full by the appellant. After perusing the details of payment of interest, it appears that considerable chunk of the interest liability has been paid prior to the issue of SCN. But a part of the interest liability has been discharged after issue of SCN but before the issue of the Order-in-Original dated 08.08.2014. In this scenario we proceed to evaluate the liability for payment of penalty under various Sections. 8. The various transactions of the appellant leading to the service tax demand were admittedly recorded in the books of accounts. In fact the facts of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
