9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant. Further, such amount of interest has been immediately deposited upon receipt of the show cause notice before the adjudication order. The penalty under Section 78 is not imposable - the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No.51536 of 2022-SM - FINAL ORDER NO. 51057/2022 - Dated:- 2-11-2022 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Kunal Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant Shri Mahesh Bhardwaj, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER The appellant is a Government of Rajasthan Undertaking registered with the Department and they are engaged in providing various IT services. The appellant also receives various input services, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- payable under Section 75 on 22.05.2020. Under circumstances the appellant have prayed that the proposal to impose penalty may be dropped. The show cause notice was adjudicated vide order-in-original dated 20.10.2020 and demand was confirmed along with appropriation of the amount of tax and interest under Section 75. Further, equal amount of penalty was imposed of Rs.46,96,327/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who vide impugned order-in-appeal have rejected the plea of time bar and further held that there is suppression on the part of the appellant in disclosing their affairs to the Department and further observing that as they did not pay the inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant is a Public Sector Undertaking and they have maintained proper records of their transactions and the demand has been raised pursuant to audit objection based on the records maintained in the normal course of business. Thus, the issue is wholly interpretational in nature, there being no element of suppression. 5. Learned Authorised Representative for the respondent relies on the impugned order. 6. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the appellant have maintained proper records of the transactions and the issue is wholly interpretational in nature. Further, I hold that the appellant is entitled to benefit of Section 73(3) as they have deposited the amount demanded pursuant to audit on 07.01.2020, which is prior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
