TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lculated and paid the interest on service tax amount, ascertained by him. Imposition of penalties - Section 77(2) and Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 – Held that: - the first appellate authority has already extended the possible relief under the law to the appellant by reducing the penalty imposable under section 76. No further relief granted – penalty imposed under section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. - ST/543/2011 - A/89257/16/STB - Dated:- 27-7-2016 - Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) and Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Nilesh Rathi, Advocate for the appellant Shri A.B. Kulgod, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No: AKP/146/NSK/2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g authority, after following due process of law confirmed interest liability and also imposed penalties. On appeal, the first appellate authority upheld the order-in-original but modified the penalty imposed under Section 76 to ₹ 100/-per day during which the failure to pay service tax continued. 5. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that issue of show cause notice has been wrong as the period of limitation also applies for the demand of interest. It is his submission that the amount of tax liability was deposited at the instance of the department and no formal order of the confirmation was made. It is his further submission that there was no show cause notice issued for appropriation of such amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as determined by him. 7.2. Secondly, the arguments of the learned advocate for the appellant regarding non-imposition of interest is also incorrect as the provisions of Section 75 would apply even in the case wherein an assessee deposits service tax liability on his own ascertainment and there is no need to issue any show cause notice to an assessee for the demand of the interest as in the case in hand. In the facts of the case, the appellant himself should have calculated and paid the interest on service tax amount, ascertained by him. 8. As regards penalty, we find that the first appellate authority has already extended the possible relief under the law to the appellant by reducing the penalty imposable under section 76. 9. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
