9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsequent events resulting in passing of the order-in-original dated 19.03.2021, the appellant does not wish to pursue the present appeal and in fact the same has become infructuous. There are no merit in the submission of the appellant to add the aforesaid prayer in the appeal memo as the same is not maintainable. In so far as the benefit, if any, that has accrued in terms of the order-in-original dated 19.03.2021, the appellant is free to seek its implementation. The appellant had admitted their service tax liability in the remand proceedings, hence they are liable to pay interest under the provision of 75 of the Act. There are no infirmity in the order imposing penalty under various provisions of the Act. The appeal is accordingly, disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant raising demand of service tax to Rs. 1,95,22,287/- alongwith interest and penalty under Section 77, 78 and separately penalty on the Directors under Section 78A of the Finance Act, 1994. On adjudication, vide OIO dated 20.06.2017, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 91,38,763/- and dropped the demand of Rs. 1,03,84,224/-, imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 77, Rs. 45,69,382/- under Section 78, Rs. 1,00,000/- each on both the Directors under Section 78A and Rs. 2,00,000/- late fee for non-filing of returns under Section 70 of the Finance Act. Against the said order, separate appeals were filed by the appellant as well as by the Department. The appeal filed by the appellant was rejected vide order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2021. The adjudicating authority observed that the order-in-original dated 20.03.2017 included the value of material supplied free of cost which later on vide judgement dated 19.02.2018 in the case of Bhayana Builders (supra) was held to be not includable. Also, on the issue of computation, in compliance to the directions of the Commissioner (Appeals), the adjudicating authority modified the service tax liability of the appellant to Rs. 68,22,460/- instead of Rs. 1,95,22,987/- as demanded in the show cause notice. Accordingly, the demand of Rs. 1,27,00,517/- was dropped. It was also noticed that the appellant had already deposited a sum of Rs. 65,60,473/-, the same is liable to be appropriated towards the service tax demand of Rs. 68,22,460 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n fact the same has become infructuous. At the same time, the appellant requested that in the event of deletion of prayer in the appeal memo, the following prayer (a) in the appeal memo may be added, which reads as under:- Provide benefit of the Order-in-Original No. 14/JOINT COMMISSIONER/DDN/2021 dated 19.03.2021 passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of the service tax liability calculated by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) 5. We do not find any merit in the submission of the appellant to add the aforesaid prayer in the appeal memo as the same is not maintainable. In so far as the benefit, if any, that has accrued in terms of the order-in-original dated 19.03.2021, the appellant is free to seek its implementation. 6. As stated a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
