9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Representative for Respondent ORDER ARCHANA WADHWA The challenge in the present appeal is only to imposition of penalty of Rs. 16,23,280/- under Section 78 of the Act and of Rs. 10,000/- each in terms of Section 77(1) (a) and 77(2) of the Act. 2. After hearing both the sides duly represented by learned advocate Shri Vaibhav Dixit appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned AR, Shri Moh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant is not contesting the demand. However, he submits that inasmuch as the same were deposited before the issuance of show cause notice even though the interest was deposited subsequent to passing of the order, no show cause notice should have been issued to the appellant in terms of Section 73(3) of the Finance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crediting the same to the Central Government. The said fact came into light only when the audit was conducted in the assessee factory. It is only after detection, the appellant deposited the service tax. It is also on record that the interest on the said service tax was not paid by the appellant till the disposal of the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). 7. I have considered the provision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of service tax. As such the issue to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether it is a simple case of non-payment of service tax, which might have occurred on account of any bona fide belief entertained by the assessee. Admittedly the appellant was collecting the service tax from their clients. However, instead of depositing the same with the exchequer, they were pocketing the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
