TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to evade payment of duty. In the present case the appellant having reflected their activities in their books of accounts, it cannot be held that there was any intention on their part to evade payment of duty. Penalties set aside - demands along with interest confirmed - appeal allowed in part. - ST/70425/2018-ST[SM] - FINAL ORDER NO.71366/2018 - Dated:- 9-7-2018 - MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, HON BLE MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) Shri Rajesh Chibber, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi, AC ( A. R. ) for the Revenue ORDER Per Mrs. Archana Wadhwa : As per facts on record the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of machinery parts for sugar mills. Some of the parts attract concessional rate of duty subject to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th of May, 2015. To err is human and the said availment of credit only in the month of May 2015 can be attributed to the said human error. The appellant, being pointed out by the Revenue, immediately reversed the said credit along with interest. In this scenario I am of the view that imposition of penalty upon them is not justified inasmuch as payment of interest, by itself, is penal in nature. 3. It is further seen that the appellant was providing some maintenance services to their clients, which attract Service Tax. The proper records for such services were being maintained by the appellant, but no Service Tax was being paid on the same as there was financial crunch in the assessee s factory. The said non-payment was detected by the au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. Admittedly the factum of providing maintenance services and the receipt of consideration for the same was a part of the appellant s business records. The appellant admitted their tax liability and paid major amount even prior to the show cause notice. To that extent, imposition of penalty upon him is not justified. As regards the balance amount the appellant have paid the same before the adjudication order. It is the appellant s contention that the same was to be reflected by them in the returns which were yet to be filed. Inasmuch as the appellant have paid the interest by delaying the deposit of the Service Tax, the same has to be considered as penal in nature, as held by the Tribunal in the case of Jas Telecom Pvt.Ltd. v. Comm. Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
