TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication of the interest. The interest needs to be re-quantified again by the Department as per the statements made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. For this purpose, the matter is remanded back again to the Assistant Commissioner for re-quantification of the interest payable under Section 75 - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Service Tax Appeal No. 20043 of 2021 - Final Order No.20669/2021 - Dated:- 16-8-2021 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Raghunathan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K.B. Nanaiah, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 30.10.2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner, Cochin on the direction of the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax and ₹ 1,85,526/- as interest against the service tax payable in respect of the work rendered for M/s Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited. The appellants had pre-deposited the balance amount of service tax amounting to ₹ 1,01,59,705/-, interest amounting to ₹ 54,64,010/- and 25 per cent penalty under Section 78 amounting to ₹ 36,70,860/-. This Tribunal vide its Final Order No. 20198/2019 dated 25.02.2019 dropped the service tax demand in respect of all matters except in respect of M/s Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited. The Tribunal also dropped the penalties under Sections 76 and 78 except in case of the service tax demanded against M/s Ambuja Cements Limited and also extended the benefit of 25 per cent penalty under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; III) I appropriate the interest of ₹ 8,94,092/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Ninety Four Thousand and Ninety Two Only) from the amount already paid by them as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as detailed in Para 27 above and from the amount of ₹ 1,85,525/- already paid by them vide Challan No.9795 dated 29.03.2010 ; IV) I desist from imposing penalty on the assessee under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994; V) I impose penalty of ₹ 10,73,318/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Seventy Three Thousand Three Hundred and Eighteen Only) under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 45,22,733/- already paid before filing the order-in- original and ₹ 1,01,59,735/- by E-payment on 20.12.2014) of which the appellants had already received Rs.,1,01,59,735/- along with interest as refund. He further submitted that the service tax payable has correctly been appropriated from the service tax already paid before the Order-in-Original which fact has also been confirmed in the refund order dated 20.06.2019. He further submitted that as far as quantification of interest is concerned, the learned Commissioner has demanded an amount of ₹ 8,94,092/- and sought to appropriate the same from the amount of ₹ 1,85,525/- paid by challan dated 29.03.2010 and the pre-deposit of interest made as per the order of the Appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order. 5. On the other hand, learned AR defended the impugned order. At the direction of the Bench, as to why the learned Commissioner has not adhered to the time limit given by the Tribunal vide its Order dated 25.02.2019, the learned AR has tried to justify by saying that during the period 2019 because of COVID, the whole system was out of order and hence the delay was caused in finalization of the case. Though, the reasons given for the delay by the Deputy Commissioner in their letter dated 19.04.2021 does not hold good as the COVID has started only in March 2020 and not in 2019. As far as the calculation of interest is concerned, the Assistant Commissioner has re-calculated the interest and found that there were same error and now ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x and this amount is liable to be adjusted against net amount of interest payable and thus the net amount works out to ₹ 2,24,144/-. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record as well as the re-quantification done by the Department as well as by the appellant, I find that in the impugned order, the learned Commissioner has confirmed the demand of interest of ₹ 8,94,092/- under Section 75 of the Finance Act and on re-quantification, the Department itself has come to the amount of ₹ 7,22,523/- which is also incorrect as per the appellant because the interest has been calculated on a wrong amount as stated by the appellant. Hence, there is a divergence of opinion between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
