TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1025X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upheld by the first appellate authority stands reduced from ₹ 3,22,191/- to ₹ 2,25,815/-. Interest is payable on this account and the amount of ₹ 60,251/- paid as interest by the appellant vide challan dated 23.04.2015 gets appropriated towards interest amount. As the appellant has already paid the amount of demand within 30 days from the issue of show cause notice, the penalty under section 76 needs to be set aside as per clause (i) of the first proviso to Section 76(1). Penalty u/s 77(2) of Finance Act, 1994 - failure to file service tax returns - HELD THAT:- There are no sufficient reason to invoke Section 80 to set aside the penalty imposed upon the assessee under section 77(2) of Finance Act, 1994 for their failur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich a letter was addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam-I Commissionerate by the appellant giving details of the service tax paid, as reply to the show cause notice. Ld. Counsel submits that although the show cause notice was dated 21.04.2015, they received it after payment of service tax as calculated by them. He submits that the amount of service tax calculated by them was based on the total rent received by them during the period 2013- 14 minus municipal taxes paid amounting to ₹ 7,79,734/-. He submits that as per notification No. 29/2012-ST, dated 20.06.2012, they are entitled to deduction of the amounts paid as municipal taxes from the value while calculating the service tax to be paid. He submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of ₹ 2,25,815/- has already been paid by them towards the confirmed demand and appropriated in the order. He submits that this amount of ₹ 3,22,191/- was calculated erroneously by not giving abatement on account of ₹ 3,27,478/- paid as property tax to the Municipal authorities by way of adjustment against interest paid during the financial year which was subsequently waived. As far as the interest amount is concerned, the original authority has appropriated an amount of ₹ 58,496/- paid by them as interest whereas the actual amount of interest chargeable and paid by them was ₹ 60,251/-, hence this needs to be corrected. The lower authority also has imposed a penalty under section 76 which, according to L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds. The first issue to be decided is whether the service tax is payable on the amount of ₹ 3,27,478/- which the appellant has claimed as abatement on account of payment of service tax but it has not been paid in cash but has been adjusted by the municipal authorities. A perusal of the Property Tax demand notice of Vizianagaram Municipality, dated 09.11.2013 in the paper book page No. 28 shows that the demand is for an amount of ₹ 7,79,734/-. The letter from the Office of the Commissioner of Vizianagaram Municipality shows that against this demand, an amount of ₹ 4,52,256/- was paid by the appellant in cash on 22.03.2014 and an amount of ₹ 3,27,478/- as interest amount adjusted from previous payments vide receipt No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
