9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hem. Having noted so he went on to invoke the extended period of limitation, demanded interest and also imposed penalties under Section 77 and 78 of the Act. The order in original only shows non application of the mind by the adjudicating authority. It seems that adjudicating authority has recorded all the finding in the matter just to justify imposition of penalty. Both the authorities below have misdirected themselves as there was no contest by the appellant to the invocation of the extended period or the demand of service tax. Appellant has suo motto computed the service tax due and has paid the said amount. He made the submission to this effect before the original authority and also before the appellate authority. He also deposited the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ein following has been held:- ORDER 1. I hereby confirm the demand of The service tax amounting to Rs.495,244/- (Service Tax Rs 483,327/-+Education Cess Rs 9667/- + Secondary Higher Education Cess Rs.2251/-) as service tax under the provision of section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 against the party alongwith interest under the provisions of section 75 of the Finance act, 1994 as amended from time to time. This amount is held to be recoverable from the party. As the party have deposited amount of service tax Rs 475,391/- vide GAR-7 No 2 dt 13.07.2011 to the Govt Exchequer. Therefore, I order for appropriation of the same against the total liability of Rs 495,244/-. The amount, if any noticed not paid on account of short payment of service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with Interest payable under Section 75 of the Act. 2. Penalty should not be imposed upon them under the erstwhile Section 75A read with Section 77 of the Act for violation of Section 69 of the Act/ rule 4 of the Rules. 3. Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 77 of the Act for violation of Section 70 read with rule 7 of the Rules, in case of each default. 4. Penalty should not be imposed upon them under section 76 of the Act for violation Section 68 of the Act read with Rule 6 of the Rules. 5. Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 78 of the Act. 2.4 This show cause notice was adjudicated as per the Order-in-Original referred in para 1 above. Aggrieved appellant f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd has been depositing tax and return thereafter on regular basis. That the party is ready to deposit the service tax, due as per the chart for calculation of tax submitted with the reply along with interest. The party vide their letter dated 04.10.2011 submitted that they have deposited service tax amounting to rs 495,244/- against the subject demand, vide GAR-7 No 14 dated 01.08.2011 and 16.08.2011, the party have also deposited Rs 42,196/- in excess as service tax voluntary on the basis of their own calculation and assured to deposit due interest shortly. They were also granted personal hearing for 07.03.2011 or 08.03.201, 27.09.2011 and 15.12.2011 or 16.02.2011. they did not appear for PH on specified dates. Therefore I have no option b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayment of service tax. c. there was reasonable cause for failure, ifany, on part of the appellant to pay service tax and to file service tax return. Hence, in terms of section 80 of Act, penalties cannot be imposed under sections 77 and 78 of the Act. 4. A personal hearing in the case was fixed on 12/08/2013 Shri Ashish Kumar authorized signatory of the appellant appeared and reiterated the grounds of appeal. 5. I have carefully gone through the fact of the case, the impugned order, grounds of appeals and the records of personal hearing. The appellant has not contested the service tax amount and deposited the service tax amount. Further, as regards, the payment of interest is concerned the same is payable under section 75 of the finance Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m entitle for any concession regarding imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 as discussed in order in original. 4.5 Both the authorities below have misdirected themselves as there was no contest by the appellant to the invocation of the extended period or the demand of service tax. Appellant has suo motto computed the service tax due and has paid the said amount. He made the submission to this effect before the original authority and also before the appellate authority. He also deposited the interest due as has been noted by the First Appellate authority. He also pleaded his lack of knowledge and status as petty contractor not having means to understand the complexity of taxation of services. Both the authority agr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
