TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 545
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of audit, it was found that appellants had wrongly calculated the amount of tax payable and there was a short-payment of Rs.78,446/-. A show-cause notice was issued on 17.8.2007 requiring the appellants to make good the short-payment. However, the appellants paid the entire amount of service tax and interest on 19.10.2007 immediately after the issuance of show-cause notice. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of service tax with interest and also imposed penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (A), who remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority with a direction to pass a speaking order. 2. Heard both the sides. The relevant por....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the date of communication of the order determining such service tax, the amount of penalty liable to be paid by such person under this Section shall be twenty five percent of the service so determined. In view of the foregoing facts, I pass the following order: I set aside the order-in-original No.75/2007 dated 15.11.2007 of the lower authority and direct the lower authority to issue a speaking order following principles of natural justice and keeping in view observations made above. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 3. From the above, it can be seen that Commissioner (A) has taken a view that there is no clear finding regarding suppression and he himself entertained....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id the amount with interest. There is no specific finding that the mis-declaration was with intention to evade duty/tax. If the intention was to evade the tax, naturally the amount received would not have been declared correctly. Even accepting the submission that there was a mis-declaration on the part of the assessee in calculating service tax, the intent to evade tax does not flow from this submission. Therefore the fact remains that appellant paid the tax and interest after the issue of show-cause notice and what remains is only the dispute about the penalty. In the absence of any appeal filed by the department and the findings by the Commissioner (A) that there was no suppression on the part of the appellant and neither of the lower au....