TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on limit. This plea cannot be a bonaflde belief because it has come on record that during the year 2007-08 he had realized an amount of ₹ 19,90,000/-. The mistaken belief now expressed by him, therefore, has no basis. - The receipts for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 were recovered from him in the form of computerized sheets to which there is no denial. - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No. ST/1541/2010 - Final Order No. A/70016/2015 - Dated:- 18-9-2015 - P. S. Pruthi, Member (T) And S. S. Garg, Member (J) For the Appellant : Shri Shubham Agrawal, Adv For the Respondent : Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Jt. Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per P S Pruthi This appeal arises from the impugned of Order-in-Appeal No: 460/ST/APPL/KNP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e contention is that since the amount of ₹ 3,27,787/- was paid before issue of show cause notice, the tax determined under Section 73(2) is ₹ 98,880/- and, therefore, penalty payable will be only 25% of ₹ 98,880/-. The appellant relied on the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad decision in the case of H.M. Singh Company vs. Commissioner of Customs, Excise Service Tax (2014) ISIE-191 All. (HC). 4. Heard both the sides and considered the submissions. The issue to be considered is whether in applying the provisions of Section 78 proviso, the amount of service tax to be considered for calculation of 25% of penalty should exclude the service tax paid before issue of show cause notice. 5. We find that the proviso refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis. 6. We have seen the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad. The facts in that case are different. It was a case where there was confusion in the interpretation of the taxable service of Manpower Recruitment and Supply . The appellant in that case was providing service to M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. and the question was whether the gross receipts were to be charged to service tax. In the present case, as we have observed above, the appellant seem to be well aware of the provisions of service tax law having taken the registration earlier, which was surrendered. The receipts for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 were recovered from him in the form of computerized sheets to which there is no denial. 7. In the circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
