2018 (4) TMI 1978

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f service tax - entire amount of service tax with interest was paid to the Department before issuance of SCN - Security Services - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that at the relevant point of time, the appellant had charged a consolidated amount from the customers and while charging such amount, the appellant was not aware about the liability of service tax payable on the security services, whic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ection 76 of the Finance Act is set aside. Further, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to recalculate the amount of service tax payable after extending cum tax benefit to the appellant. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
HON'BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON'BLE Mr. DEVENDER SINGH, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Appellant: Shri Gunjan Shah,(C.A.) For the Respondent: S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , who in turn, rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. At the outset, the Ld. CA, Sh. Gunjan Shah for the appellant submits that in the present appeal they do not dispute the liability of service tax, but the appellant contest denial of cum tax benefit and imposition of simultaneous penalty under Section 76 as well as under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. He submits that at the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ty of service tax which claimed by them as discharged with interest for paid during the period 1998 to 2002. However, the dispute centers around denial of cum-tax benefit to the appellant. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the observation of the adjudicating authority on the issue of denial of cum tax benefit, on the ground that the service tax chargeable from the customers was not shown s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d that the issue is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Raval Trading Co. case (supra). Consequently, imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act is liable to be set aside and accordingly, dropped. In the result, the impugned order is modified and cum tax benefit is hereby allowed penalty continued under Section 76 of the Finance Act is set aside. Further, th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X