TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -filing of returns - Held that:- The said penalty is not imposable in view of the fact that the appellants have filed the returns and this fact has been observed in the show-cause notice itself and the stand of the appellant from the very beginning is that he has filed the return in time - penalty set aside. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/21635/2017-SM - 20483/2018 - Dated:- 8-3-2018 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Harish Bindumadhavan, Advocate For the Appellant Smt Kavita Poduwal, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: SS GARG The present appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner dated 23.02.2017. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tself goes on a wrong premise that the purchase and sale of software amounts to service which may not be correct. Thereafter again the Commissioner heard the matter and passed the order dated 23.03.2017 dropping the entire demand. But the learned Commissioner confirmed the interest demand under Section 75 of the Finance Act for delayed payment of service tax during the period October 2006 to March 2011 and also imposed penalty of ₹ 80,000/ (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) under Rule 7 (C) of the Service Tax Rules 1994 for delayed filing of ST-3 returns during the relevant period. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the demand of interest and imposition of penalty. 2. Heard both the parties a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant has not explained the basis of the calculation. He further submitted that all the details regarding the calculation of interest computation, statement has been completely ignored by the learned Commissioner and he has wrongly confirmed the demand of interest to the tune of ₹ 5,79,031/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand and Thirty One only) whereas according to the appellant, the interest for delayed payment comes to ₹ 3,523/- (Rupees Three Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Three only) and not ₹ 5,79,031/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand and Thirty One only) and the same was paid during the time of audit itself. He further submitted that in the impugned order, the learned Commissioner has confirmed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner has wrongly observed that the appellant has not explained the basis of the calculation of interest of ₹ 3,523/- (Rupees Three Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Three only). Since the learned Commissioner has not considered the submissions raised by the assessee regarding the wrong calculation of interest, I am of the opinion that this case needs to be remanded back to the original authority to consider the details of payment of interest keeping in view the various documents which may be submitted by the appellant and re-compute the interest on the basis of various documents which may be produced by the appellant. Further with regard to imposition of penalty of ₹ 80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) for non filing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
