TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sentative submits that the Appellant is liable to pay interest on the delayed payment of service tax. We agree with the contentions of the learned Authorized Representative and hold that the Appellant would be liable to payment of interest in accordance with law, if not paid. We further uphold penalty of ₹ 5,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for delayed filing of returns by the Appellant. The penalty imposed U/s 78 of the Act is set aside noticing that the Appellant has already filed returns, though belatedly, and disclosed their service tax liability, hence, there is no suppression of facts etc involved in the instant case. Appeal allowed in part. - Service Tax Appeal No.318 of 2011 - FINAL ORDER NO. 76918/2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the instant case is confirmed against Show Cause Notice dated 25-06-2010 (Page 151) demanding Service Tax of ₹ 83,33,905/- for the period from June, 2007 to May, 2009 on the ground that the Appellant has not paid/short paid Service Tax on the services provided by them to SAIL. The Appellant was required to show cause why service tax should not be recovered from them along with interest and why penalty U/s 76, 77 and 78 should not be imposed from them. The Ld. Commissioner, by the impugned Order, upheld the demand along with interest and imposed penalty. 4. Shri Kartik Kurmy, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and submitted that in the instant case they have disclosed the taxable value in the ST-3 re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Authorised Representative submitted that as per the returns, an amount of ₹ 70,34,271/- has not been paid by the Appellant. Considering the submissions made by the Revenue, this Bench had directed the Appellant to deposit the balance service tax of ₹ 70,34,271/- which was complied by the Appellant. 6. The learned Advocate referring to Para 1 of the Report dated 25- 02-2011 of the Deputy Commissioner as forwarded by the Assistant Commissioner vide letter dated 18-12-2013 as above, submits that in the said report it is accepted that the ST-3 returns for the period October, 2008 to March, 2009 is filed by the Appellant on dated 06-07- 2010. The learned Advocate referring to the 02nd Para of the said report, subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T-3 returns for the entire period under dispute and have also paid service tax of ₹ 12,99,634/- with returns and the balance amount of ₹ 70,34,271/- is paid as per stay order passed by this tribunal aggregating to ₹ 83,33,905/-, hence, the entire tax demand as per the impugned Order stood paid, which is upheld. With respect to payment of interest, the learned Authorized Representative submits that the Appellant is liable to pay interest on the delayed payment of service tax. We agree with the contentions of the learned Authorized Representative and hold that the Appellant would be liable to payment of interest in accordance with law, if not paid. We further uphold penalty of ₹ 5,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
