9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1075X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... March, 2013, the learned Commissioner imposed penalty under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 erroneously observing that Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He submits that even though the demand is confirmed for the normal period of limitation i.e. January, 2013 to March, 2013 while adjudicating show-cause notice issued on 21.10.2013, but taking into consideration that from 2008 to 2012 the demand being settled by the appellant under VCES Scheme, 2013, the learned Commissioner has confirmed the penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. It is his contention that the learned Commissioner, while confirming the penalty under section 76, failed to appreciate that Service Tax was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x liability before issuance of SCN i.e. 21.10.2013. However the interest for the period January to March 2013 (post VCES) was paid on 25th of July 2015, i.e. much after the issuance of SCN and hence the noticee does not qualify for exemption from penalty under Section 76 (1) of FA, 1994, in as much as, though the Service tax liability was paid before issuance of the SCN, the relevant interest was paid only after a period of almost 2 years. The noticee has also paid the late fees of Rs. 20000/- vide challan dated 25.7.2015, in respect of the late filing of ST3 Returns for the period January to March 2013. 38.2. On perusal of the amended Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 quoted above, it is seen that the cases, in which fraud or collusion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of SCN. In keeping with the said facts, the noticee is paid for the period from January to March 2013 under section 76 and that the noticee is liable to pay late fees for the delay in filing returns, as applicable. 38.4 The noticee, as mentioned above, had paid their entire service tax liability in respect of the impugned SCN by 14.08.2013 i.e. before initiation of investigation by the way of an authorized visit by the officials of the DGCEI to the premises of Gufic on 25.09.2013 which has resulted in the issuance of the said SCN on 21.10.2013. Hence the allegation of intention to evade payment of Service Tax on the part of the noticee does not stick. As such I do not find this to be a fit case for imposition of penalty under Section 78 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
