9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ks of account. The amount paid are also reflected in the bank account of the appellant, thus, the genuineness of the transaction is established. Admittedly, it is not the case of Revenue that appellant is claiming the credit second time. Penalty u/s 78 of FA - HELD THAT:- The penalty is not imposable under Section 78 as the transaction is found recorded in the books of account and the short payment is mainly attributable to clerical error. Penalty under Section 77 - HELD THAT:- Penalty is confirmed as there is admittedly failure on the part of the appellant to assess and pay correct duty/ tax. Appeal allowed in part. - Service Tax Appeal No. 50772 of 2022-SM - FINAL ORDER No. 50947/2022 - Dated:- 28-9-2022 - MR. ANIL CHOUDH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 78/- Total 6,23,085/- 3. The appellant filed reply to show cause notice on 18.02.2021 stating that after taking adjustment of the undisputed input service tax for input services received during financial year 2014-15 amounting to Rs. 1,38,059/-, vide six invoices, the balance amount payable comes to Rs.4,85,026/- + Rs. 40,000/- (towards penalty under Section 77) have been deposited on 18.02.2021. Thus, the appellant did not contest the demand on merits and deposited the duty short paid after claiming adjustment of input tax credit, which was not taken credit earlier. Further, prayed for relief in the matter of penalty under Section 77 and 78 of the Act. The show cause notice was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h invoices have been duly taken notice of in the order-in-original by the Court below and have not been found to be sham or incorrect. The appellant further relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Meta Pack vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay -2003 (161) ELT 1052 (Tri. Del.) wherein the Tribunal confirmed the clubbing of two SSI units but allowed the benefit of cenvat credit of inputs/ services to the assessee. He also relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shriji Chemicals vs. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad -1998 (98) ELT 375 (Tri.) where final product, which were cleared under exemption notification, but later on have been held dutiable, it was held that benefit of credit due is not deniable while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
