9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly the decision of the Tribunal in REAL VALUE PROMOTERS PVT. LTD., CEEBROS PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, PRIME DEVELOPERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI [ 2018 (9) TMI 1149 - CESTAT CHENNAI ] in the instant case. However, taking note of the fact that the issue presently stands covered in favour of the appellant and also that the appellant has paid up major portion of the Service Tax liability before issuance of the Show Cause Notice and later paid up the balance amount, we are of the considered opinion that the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 can be extended to the appellant - The penalties imposed under Sections 77 and 78 ibid are therefore set aside, without disturbing confirmation of Service Tax demand or inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... along with interest and 25% of the penalty is paid within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. 2. Against the reduced penalty imposed by the Additional Commissioner, the Department filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Vide order impugned herein, the Commissioner (Appeals) modified the penalty as under : a) The demand of service tax, interest and appropriation of Service Tax and interest in the impugned Order-in-Original is upheld. b) Penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act is increased from ₹ 3,41,152/- to ₹ 39,80,678/-. The penalty shall stand restricted to 25% of 39,80,678/- in terms of proviso to Section 78 ibid provided the Service Tax along with interest and 25% of the penalty is paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... romoters Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of G.S.T. Central Excise, Chennai in Service Tax Appeal No. 723 of 2010 ors. vide Final Order Nos. 42436 to 42438 of 2018 dated 18.09.2018. However, the Learned Counsel was fair enough to concede that they have not filed any appeal against the confirmation of demand on merits against the order passed by the Original Authority. She pleaded that the penalties may be set aside. 4. Learned Authorized Representative Shri. S. Balakumar appearing on behalf of the Revenue supported the findings in the impugned order. It is argued by him that the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the demand of Service Tax and also enhanced the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, which is legal and proper. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
