TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of suppression facts. On 11-12-2003, an amount of Rs. 15,50,000 has been paid. On 17-12-2003, a sum of Rs. 80,000 has been paid. On 20-12-2003, a sum of Rs. 38,522 has been paid. On 7-1-2004, an amount of Rs. 30,000 was paid. Thus the show-cause notice according to the appellants was received on 18-12-2003 – Since the major amount has been paid before issuance of SCN, penalty set aside. - ST/93/2008 - 1093/2008 - Dated:- 23-9-2008 - DR. S.L. PEERAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND T.K. JAYARAMAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER K.M. Kutty for the Appellant. K. Sambi Reddy for the Respondent. ORDER T.K. Jayaraman, Technical Member - This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 01/2006-ST, dated 31-1-2006, passed by the Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1994. The appellants are highly aggrieved over the demand and also over the imposition of the penalty. It was stated by the appellant that the service tax demanded was paid even before the issue of show-cause notice. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has stated that the statement of the appellants that the service tax has been paid before the issue of show-cause notice was wrong. The amount of service tax due was paid while the show-cause notice was pending adjudication and not before the issue of show-cause notice as claimed by the appellants. Taking such a view, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original. The appellants have stated that they were not in position to collect the service tax from some of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2-2003, an amount of Rs. 15,50,000 has been paid. On 17-12-2003, a sum of Rs. 80,000 has been paid. On 20-12-2003, a sum of Rs. 38,522 has been paid. On 7-1-2004, an amount of Rs. 30,000 was paid. Thus the show-cause notice according to the appellants was received on 18-12-2003. Only excepting an amount of Rs. 38,522, the major amount had been paid before the issue of show-cause notice. This is not agreed to by the revenue. According to them, the statement that the show-cause notice was received on 18-12-2003 is not correct. In any case, we do not want to go into this question. The fact remains that the major amount has been paid by the appellant before the issue of show-cause notice and it is also seen that the appellants have moved the Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
