TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,11,415/- has been confirmed. Since this is the appellant’s case that those documents, if perused, sufficiently prove that the impugned liability for the period in dispute stands already paid - it is opined that those documents be verified by the adjudicating authorities below itself, however to the said limited aspect of as to whether the documents on record are sufficient to prove the discharge of liability by the appellant for the disputed period that too in due time. Penalty - Held that:- There has been a plethora of judgments holding that existing confusion cannot be attributed as an act of having intention to evade the duty. In the present case, appellant pleads that his duty has already been paid it is only that the authoriti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice tax amounting to ₹ 2,75,273/- as being allegedly short paid alongwith the interest at appropriate rate and the proportionate penalty. The said proposal was confirmed as such vide the Order of original adjudicating authority bearing No. 88 dated 31.03.2017. Being aggrieved an Appeal was preferred before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the order under challenge bearing No. 74 dated 08.03.2018 has partially allowed the Appeal thereby reducing the amount of service tax amounting to ₹ 1,11,415/- alongwith the proportionate interest and penalty of ₹ 1,63,858/- holding appellant to be entitled. Still being aggrieved impugned Appeal has been preferred before this Tribunal. 3. I have heard Mr. Alok Kothari, Ld. Advocate fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the said letter. However, the returns were also being filed properly in due time frame. The SCN as well as the authorities below have failed to consider the aforesaid submission of the appellant. All the relevant documents with the written submissions in this regard were placed before both the adjudicating authorities below. The order under challenge, as far as amount of demand confirmed is concerned, is therefore liable to be set aside. The Ld Counsel in addition has submitted that in the given circumstances, there was no liability of the appellant and in fact a prior SCN was also served upon him. The Department was not entitled to either issue the subsequent SCN or at least to invoke the extended period of limitation. Resultantly, n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id by the appellant in due time at the appropriate rate and the requisite returns have also been regularly filed. All these documents have been provided to the authorities below but still the amount of ₹ 1,11,415/- has been confirmed. 8. From the letter of the range superintendent as is impressed upon by the appellant to be the cause of the said confusion it is apparent that the amount of tax paid by the appellant against the service tax as was charged was not been asked for. From the orders of adjudicating authorities below it is observed that they have acknowledged the same. SCN as was issued to the appellant also acknowledged the aforesaid letter of range superintendent. The authorities have however been silent about the documen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
