TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid the entire dues along with 25% penalty of ₹ 2,64,505/- on 10/10/2018 and the Order-in-Original was dated 27/08/2018. Hence they have not fulfilled the condition as per Section 78 of the Finance Act. In the rectification of mistake application filed by the appellant, learned Commissioner vide his Order dated 05/09/2019 has allowed the ROM and modified the impugned order dated 25/03/2019 to the extent of acceptance of payment of reduced penalty as per proviso to Section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. Other demands of service tax, interest and other aspects stand undisturbed and the appellant has also paid the same as reflected in the table - Further, this ROM was allowed by the Commissioner after the present appeal has been file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cating authority confirmed a demand of ₹ 10,58,009/-(Rupees Ten Lakh Fifty Eight Thousand and Nine Only) after allowing the exemption available to the appellant and re-calculating the Service Tax payable along with interest and equivalent penalty. Aggrieved by the order of the lower authority imposing equivalent penalty, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who rejected the appeal. Hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the appellant is a partnership firm which star ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 58,009/- confirmed in OIO dated 27/08/2018 (2)50005 dated 23/02/2018 of ICICI Bank 8,31,378/- Towards balance of service tax of ₹ 6,58,009/- part interest (3)50023 dated 15/10/2018 of ICICI Bank 6,33,120/- Towards balance interest payable (4)50029-dated 10/10/2018 of ICICI Bank 2,64,505/- Penalty U/Sec.78 of F.A.1994 (reduced penalty 25% of Service Tax) (5)50029-dated 10/10/2018 of ICICI Bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 80 was in force till 14/05/2015 when this Section was omitted and therefore for the period 2012-13 to 2013-14, the provisions of Section 80 are very much applicable. Learned counsel also relied upon the following decisions in support of his contention that there was no suppression on the part of the appellant to evade the payment of service tax: (a) Centre for Management Development V/S Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, T-Trivandrum (2018 (8) TMI 1687 CESTAT Bangalore) (b) M/s Lavie Fitness V/S C.E,S. T-Commissioner of Central Excise Central Tax, Mangalore Commissionerate (2019 (7) TMI 831 CESTAT, Bangalore) (c) Rakesh Agrawal V/S. Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Jabalpur (201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ability as soon as they came to know that their activity is liable to service tax. Further, the appellant during the course of investigation have made various payments which is recorded in the table cited supra. As per the finding recorded by the Original Authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellants have paid the entire service tax along with interest and also paid 25% of the penalty under Section 78 within 30 days of the passing of the Order. Further, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has recorded the findings that the appellant had paid the entire dues along with 25% penalty of ₹ 2,64,505/- (Rupees Two Lakh Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Five Only) on 10/10/2018 and the Order-in-Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
