9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 831X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same as such representation has not been considered in the adjudication order. The appellant is manufacturing and clearing dutiable goods and are entitled to take cenvat credit of service tax payable under reverse charge mechanism. Hence, the situation is revenue neutral. In this view of the matter, the demand of ₹ 1,97,054/- as well as the penalty imposed under Section 78 of equal amount. Levy of penalties - HELD THAT:- So far penalty under Section 70 read with Rule 7(C) is concerned, the same is excessive and is reduced to ₹ 5,000/- - So far penalty under Section 77 is concerned, the same is imposed for alleged violation of Rule 5(2) of Service Tax Rules, which provides that every assessee soon after filing of their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period April, 2014 to March, 2015 total service tax under these three heads under the reverse charge mechanism, demanded for ₹ 1,97,054/- vide show cause notice dated 01.03.2017. Another demand was proposed in the show cause notice for late filing of ST-3 returns for the period October, 2013 to March, 2014 (₹ 500/-) and April, 2014 to September, 2014 (₹ 20,000/-) observing that there is delay of about five days in filing the return for the half year ended March, 2014 and further observing that the return for half year ended September, 2014 have not yet been filed. Thus, the total late fee of ₹ 20,500/- was proposed under Rule 7(C) of Service Tax Rules. Further, penalty was proposed under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty. It was also urged that the appellant company was facing financial crisis for the last few years due to glut in the steel industry and eventually shut their operation from February, 2017. 5. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that though the appellant has paid service tax but had not paid the interest under Section 75. Hence, these facts do not warrant any interference on imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Act, as it is a clear case of wilful suppression with intent to evade payment of tax. It was further observed that late fee under Rule 7(C) read with Section 70 has been rightly imposed. Penalty under Section 77 was also upheld. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
