9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 10.06.2013 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has imposed equal penalty under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that it was observed by the audit team that the appellants had not made payment of service tax on certain servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns, a show cause notice was issued demanding penalty and after following the due process, the original authority confirmed the demand. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the present appeal before the Commissioner (A) who also confirmed the order-in-original. 5. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vt Ltd vs. Comissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Mysore 2015-TIOL-533-CESTAT-Bang. 7. She further submitted that there is no suppression on the part of the appellant and the non-payment of service tax on few invoices pertaining to payment in foreign exchange was primarily on account of oversight and clerical error while computing the service tax liability and that there was no w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e penalty is not imposable when the situation is revenue neutral and for this submission, she relied upon the decision in the case of Nirlon Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai 2015-TIOL-96-SC-CN. 9. On the other hand, the Learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that there was suppression on the part of appellant with intent to evade payment and therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
