TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilment of credit of 5 invoices are due to reason that some invoices were entered twice in the Cenvat account maintained on computer system - Moreover when the mistake was pointed out by the audit party, appellant have promptly paid the entire service tax with interest. In a case where service tax alongwith interest is paid voluntarily without any contest, immunity is available u/s 73(3) - the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g demand of service tax and appropriation of the amount already paid by the appellant. In the adjudication order demand was confirmed and amount paid by the appellant was appropriated and penalty under Section 78 was imposed which is equal to the Cenvat credit of ₹ 7,09,020/. In the appeal by the appellant before the Commissioner(Appeals), he upheld the Order dated 29-7-2015 of the Original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice was issued after almost one year ten months proposing demand of service tax. He submits that there was no malafide intention in availing Cenvat credit of ₹ 7.09.020/- as against total credit. This meager amount which was inadvertently entered in the system and the appellant has paid the same alongwith interest voluntarily on pointed out by the audit party, therefore penalty unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nadvertent mistake, it should have been corrected by the appellant while finalizing the balance sheet. Therefore this shows that there is malafide intention on the part of the appellant, hence penalty imposed under Section 78 is correct and legal which should not be interfered with. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. 5. I find that wrong availment of credit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n process is required and the case stands settled immediately after payment of service tax alongwith interest. I find that case of the appellant is squarely covered under Section 73(3). In the order of the lower authorities it is not disputed that the double entry was made inadvertently. As per above discussion, I am of the view that the appellant has made out fit case for waiver of penalty under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
