9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty imposed. It is found that this is a fact which needs to be verified. There is no dispute regarding the amount of service tax liability. The only issue that has to be seen is whether the appellant had deposited only Rs. 17,85,662/- as held by the original authority or it had deposited Rs. 13,87,713/- as asserted by the appellant. It also needs to be verified that whether the appellant had deposited 25% of the penalty of Rs. 13,87,713/- within 30 days to avail the benefit of the proviso to section 78 of the Act. The factual verification may be done by the original Benefit of section 76 of the Act by the original authority and if the entire amount of service tax, as asserted by the appellant, was already paid and the penalty under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed order dated October 13, 2014 confirming the demand of Rs.13,85,662/- under proviso to section 73(1) of the Act. As the appellant had already paid this amount of Rs. 13,85,662/-, it was appropriated towards the confirmed demand. The original authority has dropped the remaining part of the demand raised in the show cause notice accepting the contentions of the appellant. The original authority also confirmed the recovery of interest on the aforesaid amount under section 75 of the Act and appropriated an amount of Rs. 1,17,432/- which the appellant had already deposited towards interest. Further, the original authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 100/- per day upto April 17, 2006 and Rs. 200/- per day from April 18, 2006 subject to maximum a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as follows : 5. We have heard the learned authorized representative appearing for the Revenue and perused the records. The original demand of Rs. 49,82,602/- as service tax under the proviso to section 73(1) was reduced to Rs. 13,87,713/- by the original authority accepting the contention of the appellant that some of the services were exempted. The same demand was upheld by the original authority. According to the original authority, the appellant had deposited Rs. 17,85,662/- towards the demand of service tax which he appropriated. In the written submissions, the appellant had submitted that it had deposited Rs. 13,87,713/-. As far as interest under section 75 of the Act is concerned, the appellant submitted that it had deposite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
