TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se at hand is identically same, and therefore, there is no justification in imposition of penalty on the appellant. Demand of interest - HELD THAT:- The same is required to be recomputed under Proviso to Section 75 of the Act by the original adjudicating authority. Accordingly, the matter remanded to the lower adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of calculating the interest as applicable in this case. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. - Service Tax Appeal No. 54166 of 2018 With Service Tax Miscellaneous Application No. 51164 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER NO. 51624/2019 - Dated:- 5-12-2019 - HON BLE MR. BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri V K Gutpa, Advocate for the appellant Ms. Tamana Alam, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat for the previous periods but for the year 2009-10, the gross receipt by the appellant never exceeded threshold exemption limit as prescribed under Notification No. 6/2005 dated 01.03.2005 as amended from time to time. The entire demand has been confirmed on the basis of Form 26 AS statement filed by the appellant before the Income Tax Department, which was made available to the service tax Department. 4. Learned Commissioner (Appeal) has rightly reduced the quantification of gross income for the year 2009-10 and 2010-11 as there were duplication in the quantification of demand in the Show Cause Notice which remains to be rectified by the original Adjudicating Authority. However, the interest was levied at the normal rate under the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laws. As and when the demand was raised the appellant without contesting, paid the entire amount even though he was not liable to do so. In the circumstances, learned Advocate plays for setting aside of the penalty and reduction of the interest by 3% as applicable in the various years. 7. Learned Authorised Representative, however, submits that the commissioner (appeal) has rightly levied the service tax at the applicable rate and since the appellant has fail to discharge service tax the penalty under various provisions of Section 77 and 78 as rightly been invoked. She, therefore, prays for sustaining the impugned order. 8. Having considered the rival submissions I find that the similar issue has come up before this Tribunal in case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
