9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT BANGALORE]. The appellants are not liable to pay the penalty under Section 78, which is set aside - As far as, penalty under Rule 7c read with Section 70 is concerned, it is also set aside because the same Rule 7 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case - Penalty under Section 77(1)(a) is upheld because the appellant failed to get themselves registered under the service tax within the stipulated time. The penalty under Section 78 and Rule 7c read with Section 70 is dropped and penalty of ₹ 10,000/- under Section 77(1)(a) is upheld - appeal allowed in part. - ST/21921/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20454 / 2019 - Dated:- 4-6-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appearance: For the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who modified the Order-in-Original. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the appellants have paid the service tax of ₹ 6,67,891/- along with interest before the issue of show-cause notice. He further submitted that once they paid the service tax along with interest, they are entitled for the benefit under Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 and the proceedings should have been concluded and there was no need for issuing the show-cause notice. He further s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty of ₹ 10,000/- under Section 77(1)(a) of the Act for failure to register under the Service Tax within the stipulated time prescribed. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of material on record, I find that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled in favour of the appellant that once the appellant pays the tax along with interest before the issue of show-cause notice, then he is not liable to pay the penalty as held in the decisions cited supra. Further I find that this Tribunal in the case of Krishna HT cited supra, on identical facts, has held in para 6 as under:- 6. After considering the submissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
