9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the ground that the service tax on the amount of ₹ 3,19,607/- was not received by the Appellant from M/s. Radission Resort and Spa Ltd. till the date of passing of the impugned order. The provision of Service Tax point of Taxation Rules prevailing during the relevant period specifically provides that the service tax was required to be paid on receipt basis and since this amount of ₹ 3,19,607/- was not received by the Appellant, therefore there Appellant was not required to pay the said amount and hence the learned Commissioner was justified in extending the benefit of point of taxation (till June, 2011) proportionately to the extent of ₹ 1,89,241/-. Reduction of penalty - HELD THAT:- The learned commissioner redu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y services. During the course of audit it was observed that for the period from years 2009-10 to 2013-14 the Appellant failed to pay service tax amounting to ₹ 14,44,821/- on the actual amount billed/ received from their customers under the category of Security Agency Service on being pointed out by Audit party, much prior to the issuance of show cause notice, the Appellant paid the amount of ₹ 10,90,653/-. The show cause notice was issued on 13.10.2014 demanding the service tax amount of ₹ 14,38,063/- with interest and penalty despite the fact that substantial amount has been paid by the Appellant before the issuance of show cause notice. The demand was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax of ₹ 1,58,169/- with interest of ₹ 5,04,532/- alongwith penalty of ₹ 5,000/- u/s. 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 and ₹ 3,12,206/- as 25% of the penalty of ₹ 12,48,822/- u/s. 78 ibid since the same had been paid within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the impugned order. 4. Since the Appellant is confining the challenge only towards penalty under section 78 ibid therefore I am confining this order to that extent only. The second proviso to Section 78 bid provides that where such service tax and the interest payable thereon is paid within thirty days from the date of the communication of the order determining the liability, the amount of penalty liable to be paid by such person und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... still I can t last sight of the fact that there is delay in depositing the amount in government exchequer, so interest and penalty are leviable. The learned commissioner reduced the amount of Service Tax demanded by the amount of ₹ 1,89,241/- alongwith reduced penalty by the same amount. So the amount can be said to be re-determined by the learned commissioner and since the appellant has paid the complete reduced amount of service tax with complete interest and 25% of the amount of reduced penalty as determined by the ld. Commissioner, within thirty days from the date of passing of the impugned order, therefore in the peculiar facts of the case the benefit of second proviso to Section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 can be extended to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
