TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. The clarification issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs would have enabled the respondents to levy interest and impose penalty only for the amount paid by the petitioner towards tax dues prior to enactment of the scheme. Their power to levy interest and impose penalty was, therefore, only on ₹ 22,135/- paid by the petitioner during November 2007 to March 2008, and not for the remaining amount paid by them after the scheme was introduced. The impugned letter dated 03.12.2015, to the extent the petitioner was called upon to pay ₹ 1,99,183/-, is set aside. It is made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondents from initiating action to levy interest and impose penalty on the amount paid by the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecember 2012. The petitioner submitted an application, in terms of the scheme, and declared their service tax dues as ₹ 3,77,150/- for the said tax period. While they paid 50% thereof i.e ₹ 1,88,575/- on 31.12.2013; they paid ₹ 1,66,260/-on 28.06.2014, and informed the respondents that, along with the sum of ₹ 22,135/- paid by them during the period November 2007 to March 2008, they had paid the entire service tax dues of ₹ 3,77,150/-. However, by the impugned letter dated 03.12.2015, the petitioner was informed that payments made by them before the notification i.e 10.05.2013 would not be considered for discharging the liabilities declared by them under VCES; and since the petitioner had not paid ₹ 22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s,1,88,575/- on 31.12.2013 and an additional sum of ₹ 1,66,260/- on 28.06.2014 prior to the cut off date prescribed under the scheme i.e 30.06.2014. The aforesaid payments were made after introduction of the scheme and prior to the cut off date. The petitioner had paid only ₹ 22,135/- prior to the introduction of the scheme. The clarification issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs would have enabled the respondents to levy interest and impose penalty only for the amount paid by the petitioner towards tax dues prior to enactment of the scheme. Their power to levy interest and impose penalty was, therefore, only on ₹ 22,135/- paid by the petitioner during November 2007 to March 2008, and not for the remaining amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
