TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther service receivers for which no duty demand was made by the respondent department, it can be affirmatively stated that there was no intention traceable, in the entire proceeding concerning suppression of fact for the purpose of non-discharge of service tax. Interest - penalty - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant disputes the bifurcation made by the Commissioner (Appeals) on payment of ₹ 1,24,867/- by showing payment towards interest charged at ₹ 9,541/- in para 5 of his order, which appellant states to have paid under the interest code and furnished documentary proof too, besides the fact that with recalculation on the basis of cum duty benefit ₹ 8,88,790/- was stated to be refundable to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dia Pvt Ltd and no payment has been made to that effect. Being informed it had obtained service tax registration on 17th March 2010 and discharged all service tax dues to the extent of ₹ 24,08,587/- including such payment shown by the Auditor against M/s. Gateway Terminals. Appellant was asked to pay interest on the service tax liability which it had discharged but was show caused on allegation of non-payment of interest. In the adjudication process tax liability, equivalent penalty and penalty under Section 70 and 77 of FA were confirmed. Appellant s unsuccessful attempt before the Commissioner (Appeals) has brought the dispute to this Forum. 3. In the memo of appeal and during the course of hearing of appeal, Ld. Counsel for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since there was no proposal in the show cause notice for imposition of such penalty for which the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is required to be set aside. 4. In response to such submissions, Learned Authorised Representative for the Respondent Department Mr Dharmendra Singh argued in support of the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and had drawn attention of this Bench to para 4 6 of the show cause notice dated 6-2-2013 to justify that despite five letters dated 23-7-2010, 27-1-2011, 10-6-2011, 13-9-2011 7 20-10-2011 sent to the appellant by the Department to pay interest of ₹ 1,40,775/-, Appellant had not responded for which it was justify Show caused as wilful suppression ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submission that it had not availed the benefits of cum duty u/s 67 of FA 1994 to which it was entitled has its force. This coupled with discharge of service tax liability against services extended to other service receivers for which no duty demand was made by the respondent department, it can be affirmatively stated that there was no intention traceable, in the entire proceeding concerning suppression of fact for the purpose of non-discharge of service tax. Further, appellant disputes the bifurcation made by the Commissioner (Appeals) on payment of ₹ 1,24,867/- by showing payment towards interest charged at ₹ 9,541/- in para 5 of his order, which appellant states to have paid under the interest code and furnished documentar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
