9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri. Ganesh Prabhu, Ld. Consultant, made a number of submissions which in brief, are as under : (i) The audit of accounts by the Revenue was conducted on 02.12.2015 for the period from July 2010 to September 2015 and the Show Cause Notice is dated 24.10.2016; (ii) There is an assertion that the alleged non-payment/short payment was paid much before the issuance of Show Cause Notice and therefore, by virtue of Section 73 (1) and 73 (3) of the Finance Act, 1994, no Show Cause Notice ought to have been issued; (iii) By the Order-in-Original, the Adjudicating Authority has appropriated the tax paid along with interest and therefore, what has remained is only the penalty imposed under Section 78 ibid.; (iv) The Adjudicating Authority ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... G.S.T. and Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore, Circuit Office at Salem Commissionerate vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 119/2018-ST dated 23.07.2018. 4. Shri. B. Balamurugan, Ld. AR, on the other hand, supported the findings of the lower authorities. 5. I have considered the rival contentions and gone through the documents/orders of the lower authorities placed on record. 6. The Revenue has not disputed the assertion of the appellant that the tax portion was paid along with interest much before the issuance of Show Cause Notice and even the Order-in-Original has appropriated the Service Tax to the extent of Rs. 34,90,385/- as against the demand of Rs. 35,41,407/-. 7.1 In the Show Cause Notice, the Adjudicating Authority has after ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry Vs. M/s. Pondicherry Paper Ltd. reported in 2014 (1) E.C.S. (51) (HC - Mad.) has held that there is no justification for imposition of penalty especially when there is no allegation of fraud, mis-representation, etc., after following various judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court which are referred to therein. I note that this above view of the Hon'ble High Court has also been reiterated in the case of M/s. Mahadev Logistics Vs. Cus. & C.Ex. Settlement Commission, New Delhi reported in 2017 (3) G.S.T.L. 56 (Chhattisgarh) 8. In the light of the above discussions and for the above reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the penalty under Section 78 ibi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
