9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 675X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allenge i.e. Order-in-Original bearing No. 0103-16-17 dated 02.02.2017 vide which the amount Rs. 1.00 Lakh has been imposed as penalty upon both the appellants, being the Director/ Authorized Signatory in terms of Section 78A of Finance Act, 1994. 2. The facts succinctly are that the appellants are engaged in providing taxable services, namely, Security Agency Services and they were collecting the tax on the value of the services, but were observed to not to have deposited the same in the Government Account. Resultantly, Show Cause Notice bearing No. 138/2015 dated 06.01.2016 was served upon the appellants proposing the recovery of Service Tax for an amount of Rs. 2,33,71,600/- alongwith interest and penalties was imposed upon the company, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ability even of the penalty under Section 78A of Finance Act. The present appellants being the family member were involved in taking care of him. Hence, could not take care of their business. The mistake if any committed was of their staff. For this reasons, the penalty is prayed to be set-aside. 6. Learned Authorized Representative while rebutting these submissions has mentioned that there is nothing in SVLDRS, Scheme to extend immunity to the co-noticees in case, the benefit of scheme is extended to one of the co-noticees of one show cause notice. It is mentioned that the Learned Adjudicating Authority has passed the order after taking into consideration all the submissions including the one that Section 78A of Finance Act, 1994 got inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2012 to 2013-2014. Hence, it is clear that the periods is pre as well as post the insertion of Section 78A in the impugned Act. We do not find any reason to extend any benefit of said provisions to the appellant. It has otherwise been discussed in the order-in-original itself. We find no reason to differ from these findings except that considering the grave circumstances in the present appeals that both the appellants being the family members of the third Director of their company, were grossly engaged in fighting the chronic illness of the said third Director. Hence, we are keen to extend the benefit of said circumstance to the appellant by reducing the penalty to an amount of Rs. 50,000/- each of the appellant. 9. With these observation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
