TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 945X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant. - ST/26620/2013-SM - 20742/2017 - Dated:- 23-1-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. R. Dakshina Murthy, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Parasivamurthy N.K, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 29.3.2013 passed by the Commissioner (A) wherein the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is registered with the service tax department under the category of Outdoor Catering Services since June 2005 and are discharging the service tax liability. During the disputed period, the appellant paid service tax of ₹ 1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the appellant has paid the substantial amount much before the issue of show-cause notice and the department should not have issued the show-cause notice. He further submitted that he has paid the entire service tax along with interest out of their own efforts and the service tax was not collected from their customers M/s. Wipro Sales and M/s. BTC. For this, he has attached declaration with the appeal also. He further submitted that due to financial difficulties, he could not pay the service tax in time as he could not collect the amount from his customers. He further submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case, the appellant has paid the entire dues along with interest and he has also submitted that on account of recession he had to close down his business and further, he has not collected the service tax from his customers and the delay happened on account of non-recovery of dues from his customers. Further, I also find that he has not been given the opportunity of paying 25% of the tax as penalty in terms of Section 78 of the Act. Therefore by following the ratios relied upon by the appellant, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if the appellant is directed to pay 25% of the penalty amount which would come to ₹ 2,39,243/-. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. The said amount should be paid within one month from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
