TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8-9-2016 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Ms. Padmavati Patil, Advocate, for appellant Shri A.B. Kulgod, Asst. Commr (AR), for respondent Per: M.V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No.21/ST/COMMR/2011-12 dated 31.10.2011. 2. Briefly stated, the appellants were providing various services like commercial coaching and training to individuals and corporates; manpower recruitment and supply services, business auxiliary services, intellectual property services and business support services. They failed to discharge service tax liability on due dates, as per Section 68 read with Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, entire service tax was paid, along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further submission that once the impugned Order admits that there was no suppression etc., the case is squarely covered under Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, since entire service tax, along with interest, was paid before issuance of SCN and, therefore, the SCN itself was not warranted, for which the learned Counsel relied upon judgments in the cases of Master Clean - 2012 (25) STR 439 (Kar); Adecco Flexione Workforce - 2012 (26) STR 3 (Kar); Vee Aar Secure - 2011(22) STR 517 (Kar) etc . 3.1 The learned Counsel would also submit that since the appellants have filed ST-3 Returns and also paid late fees of ₹ 2,000/- each (aggregating to ₹ 6,000/-) for the delay in filing such Returns, penalty under Rule 7C of STR is also not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Sections 76 also, as has been held by Hon ble Kerala High Court judgment in the case of Akbar Travels of India (P) Ltd. v/s CCE, C ST , Thiruvananthapuram, reported in 2 015 (38) STR 957 (Ker ). Therefore, penalty under Section 76 is also not warranted. We are also in agreement with the contention of the Counsel for the appellants that once entire service tax along with interest was paid before issue of show cause and there was no suppression, etc. as held by the adjudicating authority, provisions of Section 73(3) would come into play and, therefore, penalties should not have been imposed by the adjudicating authority, based on various case laws on the issue. We also find that since the appellants have paid late fees of ₹ 2,000/- e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
