TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period from 01.04.2009 to 30.09.2009 is beyond the extended period of limitation, therefore, the demand of service tax for the period 01.04.2009 to 30.09.2009 is set-aside as time barred - penalty also to be reduced to that extent. Penalty u/s 78 - Held that: - Admittedly the appellant has filed declaration on VCES Scheme, 2013 wherein the appellant has declared a sum of ₹ 1,43,685/-. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) For Appellant (s): Shri S. J. Vyas, Advocate For Respondent (s): Shri L. Patra, AR Per: Mr. Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order for seeking certain relief on merits as per the impugned order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed declaration under VCES Scheme 2013 wherein declared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal on the ground that the demand beyond the period of five years is not sustainable and penalty to the extent of the amount declared in VCES Scheme 2013 is required to be reduced and when the penalty under Section 77 (2) for non registration has already been imposed, therefore, no penalty under Section 70 of the Act is imposable for late fees. 3. Heard the parties and considered the submissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant has declared a sum of ₹ 1,43,685/-. The said amount is also found in the demands as per the show cause notice, therefore, the said amount is required to be reduced from the total demand and the penalty is also modify, therefore, penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is reduced:- (c) I find that in the impugned order, the penalty under Section 77 (2) of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
