2018 (11) TMI 1210

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The above appeal is filed by the assessee aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri S. Viswanathan submitted that the appellant is contesting only the penalty imposed. 2. Brief facts are that the appellants are dealing in MS angles, MS squares, MS rounds, MS sh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e demand, interest and imposed penalties under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 3. The ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that during the relevant period the appellant was only a dealer and was not aware that they are liable to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism for the freight charges under GTA service. As .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntent to evade payment of service tax and therefore the penalty imposed is legal and proper. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The ld. counsel has submitted that the appellant is confining the challenge only on the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. After hearing the submissions and on perusal of records, we find that the demand has been quantified in the show cause notice basing u .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X