9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent ORDER Heard the parties. Vide impugned Order-in-Appeal the following demand have been confirmed which are in dispute:- (i) Interest Rs. 47,795/- under Section 75. (ii) Service Tax Rs. 1,88,003/- including cess as service tax short paid under the head outdoor catering service, with equal amount of penalty under Section 78. (iii) Demand of Rs. 22,824/- including cess unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this ground, observing that the appellant have produced only four copies of bills for outdoor catering by way of sample. Further observing that conclusion cannot be drawn on the basis of sample copies, and the appellant should have produced all the bills for verification. 4. I find that such observation of Commissioner (Appeals) is bad in law and on facts. There was no dispute with regard to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of service tax, resulting in short payment. The mistake is bona fide as it is not the case that appellant have collected more tax but have deposited less tax. The learned Counsel admits that the liability of Rs. 22,824 and undertakes to pay the same, if not paid alongwith interest as applicable. 6. The next issue is regarding levy of penalty of his 38,100/- under Section 70 r/w Rule 7C of Serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Rs. 1,400/-. Further, penalty under Section 70 for other returns is not interfered with. 7. The next issue is related to levy of interest for short payment of service tax amounting to Rs. 47,795/- under Section 75 of the Finance Act. 8. So far the amount of interest is concerned, the said amount is set aside by way of remand with direction to the adjudicating authority to re-compute the amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
