9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iary Services on the overseas commission agent was issued on 24.06.2009. The Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 29.06.2010, held against the appellants on merit and confirmed the demand of Rs. 11,71,092/- along with interest of Rs. 1,60,139/-. Penalty was also imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act. In acceptance of their liability, the appellants had already deposited Rs. 13,36,010/- (Service Tax Rs. 11,42,082/-, Edu.Cess Rs. 22,842/-, H.S.Edu.Cess Rs. 10,947/- and Interest Rs. 1,60,139/-) calculated towards their Service Tax liability for the period 18.4.2006 to 30.9.2008. These deposits were made on 22.09.2008, 29.10.2008 and 04.11.2008. The confirmed amount of service tax and interest was appropriated by the adjudicating autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d.vs. CST, Mumbai-II - 2016 (3) TMI 999 CESTAT Mumbai (viii) M/s Basai Steels & Power (P) Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Hyderabad - 2016 (6) TMI 677 CESTAT Hyderabad Alternatively, he stated that he should be given the benefit of reduced penalty @25% in view of the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE Vs. M/s Bajaj Travels (CEA No. 177 of 2010) and CCE, Ludhiana Vs. City Cables - 2012 (35) STT 558/21 taxmann.com 469 (P&H) and CCE & ST, Surat-I Vs. Rita Dyeing & Printing Mills (P) Ltd. (Appeal No.1217 of 2011). He gave express consent to paying reduced penalty and when the same was specifically asked by the Bench, he reiterated the same. He added that the same may be adjusted from the excess amount of Rs. 3,75,439/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d provided the necessary documents and information in respect of overseas commission. Besides, they also paid the service tax and interest much before the issue of show cause notice. In these circumstances, short payment of tax is enough to impose penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act. 6.2 Even though there are differing Tribunal and High Courts judgments on the option for granting concession of penalty by the Tribunal, I find that in an identical situation the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, while upholding the restriction of Section 78 penalty to 25% of Service Tax by this Tribunal has held as below in the case of City Cables (supra): "An assessee is required to be informed to avail the benefit of second proviso so that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
