TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 806X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cious conduct on the part of the appellant. Rather the appellant have deposited almost 4 times the actual tax levy with the revenue and such excess amount, remained with the revenue, for substantial time before being adjusted in the subsequent return periods - for some and/or minor failure on the part of the appellant in depositing the tax on or before the due dates, penalty u/s 76 is not exigible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30 days. Accordingly, for the delayed payment, penalty was proposed amounting to ₹ 6,90,157/-. 3. The appellant contested the show cause notice by urging that they are a manufacturer of sugar and molasses. They have paid Service Tax on reverse charge basis on the GTA Services received. They were entitled to abatement of 75% of the gross value of GTA service received under the provisions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x payable and deposited on monthly basis during the period December, 2006 to September, 2007. From a perusal of the chart, it is evident that the Service Tax payable for December was ₹ 8,01,759/- against which the appellant paid ₹ 32,14,048/- on 06/01/2007 and further ₹ 61,954/- on 28/04/2007. In this fashion for the total Service Tax payable from December, 2006 to March, 2007 ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue for a substantial time, the penalty imposed under Section 76 is not tenable and the same is fit to set aside. 5. The learned A.R. for revenue has relied on the impugned order. He further points out from the ST-3 returns that the appellant had not shown and reflected excess payment of tax in the returns. Accordingly, the penalty imposed under Section 76 is justified. 6. Having considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
