2020 (5) TMI 96

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rther, it is recorded in the impugned order that the balance short fall of ₹ 52,429/- was also paid by challan dated 28 February, 2013. That is on before the date of passing of the order in original. Accordingly, under the facts and circumstances, no case of deliberate default is made out against the appellant - The appellant have given a cogent explanation for the tax short paid, that they .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2010, it appeared that the appellant have not issued serially numbered invoices and many invoices issued were found missing from the records and books of account were not maintained on day to day basis. The service tax returns appeared to be not reflecting the factual position of gross receipt. Therefore, assessee was asked to obtain the account statement from the recipient of service viz. Shree .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide impugned ex-parte order dated 13.6.2018, imposed penalty under Section 78 observing that there is no dispute about tax liability and interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that assessee was to maintain proper records and had paid the service tax short paid, only on being so pointed out by the audit. 3. Being aggrieved .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X