TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same has been accepted by the respondent. Further, the excess amount paid by the respondent has been refunded; in that circumstance, the provisions of Section 73(3) of the Act are invokable, therefore, no penalty is imposable on the respondent. Appeal allowed in part. - ST/21352/2015-SM - 22649/2017 - Dated:- 27-10-2017 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Judicial Member Dr. J. Harish, AR - For the Appellant Mr. Rajesh Kumar, CA - For the Respondent ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order on the ground that learned Commissioner (A) has fell in error in holding that show-cause notice which has been issued is time barred. 2. The brief facts of the case are that during the period 1 st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Fabrics Pvt. Ltd.: 2010 (256) ELT 369 (Guj.) Mangalore Tourist Service Vs. CCE: 2013 (29) STR 244 (Tri.-Bang.) 4. On the other hand, the learned CA appearing on behalf of the respondent opposed the contention of the learned AR and submits that as the person who was looking after the service tax issue met with an accident and due to that reason the respondent was not aware about the payments of service tax. As and when it was pointed out, they immediately paid service tax along with interest, even excess service tax has been paid. It is also submitted that although the learned Commissioner (A) has dropped the proceedings initiated against the respondent in the show-cause notice but the respondent is admitting their liability t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- (d) they had in fact paid excess ST amounting to ₹ 4,29,538/- (e) if they had any intention to evade the ST they would not have paid the excess ST as disclosed in their letter dated 21.06.2011 (f) they had paid the ST on the taxable value of ₹ 33,69,704/- for the period from 10/2010 to 12/2010 amounting to ₹ 3,47,080/- (including cesses) on 29.03.2011 with not excessive delay of eight three days (in the given circumstances) which is however improperly alleged as non-payment of ST and extended period is invoked in the SCN (g) they had paid the ST on the taxable value of ₹ 1,10,06,093/- for the period from 01/2011 to 03.2011 amounting to ₹ 11,33,628/- (including cesses) on 28.04.2011 with a slight delay of tw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
