2011 (3) TMI 942

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....w cause notice was issued and in the Order-in-Original dated 31.08.2010 an amount of Rs.3,82,046/- was demanded along with interest. The original adjudicating authority imposed equal penalties under Section 76 & 78. However, the demand prior to 18.04.06 was dropped. The main contention of the appellants was that the liability for service tax arises only on receipt of payment of value of taxable service and they have not made any payment of difference in amount of commission. It was also contended that the demand of interest and imposition of penalties under 76 & 78 was not sustainable as no liability is involved and there was no contravention of any law. After considering the plea of the appellants the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the Orde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....already paid an amount of Rs.3,82,046/- under protest. Shri Nagar, learned SDR on behalf of Revenue while arguing the case mentioned about the Circular F.No.275/7/2010-CX.8A dated 30.06.2010. He also placed reliance on the following cases:   1. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. CCE Jaipur [2008-TIOL-1149-CESTAT-DEL-LB)].   2. UOI Vs. Aditya Cement [2008-TIOL-483-HC-RAJ-ST)]   3. Chemfab Alkalis Ltd. Vs. CCE Pondicherry [2010 (251) ELT 264 (Tri. Chennai)]   4. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Krishna Poduval [2006(1) STR 185 (Ker.)]   5. I have considered the judgments/orders of various Courts and Tribunals relied upon by both the appellant as well as Revenue regarding the argument on the provisions of service....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....period and the demand is not sustainable as there was no suppression of fact by the appellant is devoid of merits. The Tribunal s order in the case of Chemfab Alkalies Vs. CCE Pondicheery reported in 2010 (251) ELT 264 (Tri. Chennai) is rightly applicable in this case. With regard to the penalty under Section 78 though I find that as per records of the case certain information was not supplied to the department and was suppressed by the appellant, on verification, complete details of transactions were available in the specific records it will be justified if the penalty under Section 78 is reduced to 50% of the service tax not paid. Section 76 is applicable in cases where a delayed payment is involved. It was strongly contended by the appel....