9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e department has quantified the demand on the basis of TDS certificate which is inclusive of the service tax paid by them - the matter requires to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of requantifying the demand after considering the plea put forward by the appellants with regard to incorrect calculation. Penalty u/s 76, 77 and 78 - Held that:- There are no grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat they have not discharged service tax on the entire taxable value for which SCN was issued proposing to demand short paid service tax along with interest and for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 52,87,010/- with interest for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2011. He also imposed penalties under Section 76, 77 78 of the Finance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the delay in paying service tax was only due to the delay in receiving dues from the customers. He requests that a lenient view may be taken and the penalties imposed under Section 76 78 may be set aside. 3. Ld. A.R Shri S. Govindarajan supported the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that since the appellant has put forward an incorrect quantification of demand, the same has to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with regard to incorrect calculation. 6. Ld. counsel has also pleaded to set aside penalties imposed under Section 76 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. He submits that penalty imposed under Section 77 has already been paid by them. We find that penalty imposed under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 are mutually exclusive. From perusal of records, we do not find any grounds of suppression ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
