9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresentative for the Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary: The issue involved in this appeal is whether penalty under Section 78 was rightly imposed under the Finance Act. 2. Admitted fact is that the appellant are a testing and research centre. They are registered with the Service Tax Department for providing Scientific & Technical Consultancy service to their clients. The appellant have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proposal to appropriate similar amount already deposited with proposal to levy of interest and to appropriate Rs. 2,46,196/- already paid on account of interest and further proposal to levy penalty under Section 78 of the Act read with Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The show cause notice was adjudicated vide order-in-original dated 16.11.2017 by the Assistant Commissioner and he confirme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order-in-appeal observed that the adjudicating authority has failed to analyse that mere showing details in balance sheet / financial statements would save an assessee from their intent of evasion of service tax, had it been so, the mandatory penalty provisions of reducing the penalty to 50% of the tax demand confirmed, in ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder. 6. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that penalty on the allegation of deliberate delay and on the failure of the appellant is imposable under Section 76 of the Finance Act. Penalty under Section 78 is attracted in case of any short levy etc. on account of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts including the contravention of the provisions of the Act or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
