TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the entire amount of ₹ 52,57,748/= and the appeal was restricted to an amount of ₹ 4,89,448/= and penalties imposed on the same. The learned Tribunal ought to have restored the appeal with respect to the penalties imposed under Sections 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the remaining sum of ₹ 47,68,300/. Appeal partly allowed by way of remand. - TAX APPEAL No. 886 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 14-2-2017 - MR. M.R. SHAH AND MR. B.N. KARIA, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MR DHAVAL SHAH, ADVOCATE FOR THE OPPONENT : MR ANKIT SHAH, ADVOCATE ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1. ADMIT . Shri Ankit Shah, learned advocate waives service of notice of admission o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereof and Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. However, as against the liability as above, the assessee had already paid an amount of ₹ 47,68,300/=, the Adjudicating Authority appropriated the said amount towards confirmed tax demand of ₹ 52,57,748/= and directed it to pay the remaining sum of ₹ 4,89,448/=. That, the Adjudicating Authority also directed the appellant to pay interest at the prescribed rate on the service tax which was short paid/late paid in terms of Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Adjudicating Authority also passed an order imposing penalty of ₹ 100/= per day for each day during which the appellant [Messrs. SCI International Securities Limited] failed to pay the service tax under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of tax of ₹ 4,89,448/= alongwith interest and penalties. 3.3 At this stage, it is required to be noted that it was not clarified by the learned Tribunal that the remand would be with respect to the penalty imposed on the entire amount of ₹ 52,57,748/= or not ? And, there was some ambiguity in the order, as in the operative portion of the order, the order of remand was with respect to the demand of balance amount of ₹ 4,89,488/= alongwith interest and penalties [meaning thereby the interest and penalties of ₹ 4,89,448/= only] and as the appeal was against the penalties imposed under Sections 76 and 78 of Finance Act on the entire demand of service tax ie ., ₹ 52,57,748/=, the appellant preferred Misc. Appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al, considered the dispute with respect to the interest and penalties on the remaining sum of ₹ 4,89,448/= and had not considered anything on merits with respect to the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority on the remaining amount of ₹ 47,68,300/=. Though it was pointed out in the Application for Rectification of Mistake, the learned Tribunal has still not considered the same. Under the circumstances, there was an error apparent on the face of the record, while disposing of the main appeal in not considering the legality and validity of the order-in-original imposing penalties under Sections 76 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the entire amount of ₹ 52,57,748/= and the appeal was restricted to an amount of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
