9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in terms of the provisions of Section 73 A of the Finance Act. The fact that it has not been raised under the said section itself leads to inevitable conclusion that no service tax was being recovered by the appellant from their clients - matter remanded to Commissioner for re-quantification of the demand of service tax, after extending the benefit of cum duty. Penalty u/s 78 - Benefit of reduced penalty - Held that:- The Commissioner, in his impugned order, has extended the option to the assessee to pay all the dues within a period of 30 days of communication of the order in which case penalty payable would get reduced to 25% of the total tax confirmed against them. The appellant has not exercised the option given by the Commissioner a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id an amount of around ₹ 35 lakhs. Thereafter, based upon the result of the investigations, proceedings were initiated against the appellant for confirmation of demand of ₹ 1.09 crores by way of issuance of show cause notice, which stands culminated into the impugned order passed by the Commissioner along with imposition of penalty of identical amount in terms of provisions of Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 along with imposition of penalty under Section 70 and 77 of the Act. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Learned Chartered Accountant appearing for the appellant fairly concedes that there was suppression of the value of the services and also the facts of rendering of services, which were not disclosed in the returns. Howev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, the contention of the learned Advocate is that as they have deposited a part of amount of the tax i.e. to the extent of ₹ 65 lakhs prior to the issuance of show cause notice or prior to the passing of order, the imposition of equal penalty to that extent is not justified and they should be given liberty to pay penalty of 25% of the said deposited amount. For the above proposition, he relies upon the Tribunal s decision in the case of Perfect Security Placement Services Final Order No.72231/2018 dated 14.09.2018. 6. However, we find that in the said decision of the Tribunal penalty has been reduced to 25%, inasmuch as, no option was extended by the adjudicating authority to the assessee. As such by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
