TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayment of tax on the part of the appellant - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/20932/2016-SM & ST/21621/2016 - 22448-22449/2017 - Dated:- 13-10-2017 - Shri S.S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. T. T. Biju, Advocate, For the Appellant Mr. Naveen Kushalappa, AR, For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S. GARG These two appeals have been filed against the two impugned orders dated 21.3.2016 and 28.7.2016 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeals of the appellant but set aside the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, subject to payment of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Since the issue in both the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1994, was proposed. They later paid the interest of ₹ 11,74,790/-. The lower authority vide the impugned order appropriated the service tax and interest already paid and penalty of ₹ 200/- per day was imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, till the date of payment of service tax, penalty of ₹ 5,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 and a penalty of ₹ 28,23,747/- was imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, with an option to avail the benefit under proviso (1) and (2) of Section 78 of the Act. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) on the ground that there was no suppression to evade the payment of service tax as the appellants hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not have issued the show-cause notice as per the provisions of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act. He also submitted that the Department has not brought any evidence on record to show that there was suppression on the part of the appellant with intention to evade the payment of service tax. In support of his submission, he filed the copy of the balance sheet for the relevant period and also relied upon the following decisions: Compagnie Generale De Geophysique Vs. CST: 2015 (40) STR 704 UOI Vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills: 2009 (238) ELT 3(SC) Hajarilal Jangid Vs. CCE: 2011 (24) STR 510 (Tri.-Mum.) Gupta Metallics Power Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2016 (44) STR 681 (Tri.-Mum. 6. On the other hand, the lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
