TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 907X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... five percent of the service tax so demanded. The said proviso prescribing concession in penalty to the extent of 25% of duty demanded subject to payment of all dues within 30 days of the order was introduced with effect from 14.5.2003. In view of the Corrigendum issued by the Adjudicating Authority, failure of Appellant to pay penalty amount within 30 days of adjudication order cannot be held against the Appellant. The learned Commissioner in the impugned order did not extend this option to the Appellants although he ought to have given this option. May be because of recording the wrong facts in the impugned order that the Order-in- Original is dated 26.2.2016 [whereas the same is dated 15.7.2016] and the penalty of 10% was paid on 30. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the Royaltee fee paid to a foreign party and accordingly the appellants were directed to deposit the Service tax amount of ₹ 3,83,867/- with interest ₹ 1,51,917/- alongwith penalty of ₹ 38,386/- under Section 76(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, on the same day the Appellants deposited the Service tax amount of ₹ 3,83,867/- with interest of ₹ 1,51,917/-, but without any penalty. After almost three months a show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 26.2.2016 proposing to demand and recover service tax amount of ₹ 3,83,368/- alongwith interest and to appropriate the service tax and interest paid and it also proposes to impose penalty u/s. 78 ibid. After the receipt of show cause notice the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at a show cause notice was issued to the Appellants after three months. According to him since there is no fraud or collusion or willful misstatement on the part of the appellants therefore Section 76 ibid comes in picture which says that if the amount of service tax and interest is paid within 30 days of service of notice then no penalty is payable. And in this case admittedly the appellants have paid service tax with interest much before the issuance of show cause notice therefore they are not liable to pay any penalty. According to him, despite the fact that they are not liable to pay any penalty, the Appellants have paid the 10% penalty of ₹ 38,386/- on 30.3.2016 and later 5% more on 11.8.2016 as per the Corrigendum to the order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued under which provision of law has not been mentioned anywhere in the said Corrigendum nor I have come across any such provision nor either of the parties able to produce any such provision and therefore the same has rightly been set aside the learned Commissioner. In view of the Corrigendum issued by the Adjudicating Authority, failure of Appellant to pay penalty amount within 30 days of adjudication order cannot be held against the Appellant. The learned Commissioner in the impugned order did not extend this option to the Appellants although he ought to have given this option. May be because of recording the wrong facts in the impugned order that the Order-in- Original is dated 26.2.2016 [whereas the same is dated 15.7.2016] and the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
