TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has to be paid into the Central Government Account, irrespective of the fact from which office or establishment of the assessee, such payment has been made. However, it is found that the original authority has not considered payment of such amount by the appellant. Thus, under the circumstances, the matter should go back to the original authority for ascertaining the fact, whether such amount of Rs.26,548/- has already been paid by the appellant. Imposition of penalty under Section 78 ibid - HELD THAT:- The submissions of the appellant that nonpayment of service tax within the stipulated time frame was not owing to the reason of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, etc., with the intent to defraud the Government Revenue are agreed u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the said order against the confirmed demands. Besides, the impugned order also imposed penalty of Rs.1,52,27,986/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the appellant. 2. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the entire service tax liability along with interest in respect of the adjudged demands, have already been paid before adjudication of the matter and thus, the benefit of subsection (3) of Section 73 ibid should be available to the appellant for non-imposition of penalty under Section 78 ibid. He further submitted that non-payment of service tax within the stipulated time frame was owing to the reason that the appellant had entertained the bona fide belief that it should be eligible for the exemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bed with service tax liability of appellant s head office. The observations made in the impugned order regarding non-consideration of payment at the factory towards the service tax liability of head office is not legally sustainable inasmuch as the statutory levy has to be paid into the Central Government Account, irrespective of the fact from which office or establishment of the assessee, such payment has been made. However, we find that the original authority has not considered payment of such amount by the appellant. Thus, under the circumstances, we are of the view that the matter should go back to the original authority for ascertaining the fact, whether such amount of Rs.26,548/- has already been paid by the appellant. 6. With rega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
