TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 858
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the appellant and Mr. R Deb Nath, learned CGC appearing for the respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the appellate tribunal dated 11.07.2014 dismissing the appeal being No.ST/A/70356/2013 only on the ground that the appeal filed by the present appellant is barred by limitation. 3. The concise fact leading to the filing of the present appeal is noted. The appellant was seeking waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 7,73,530 imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and penalty of Rs. 5000/- under Section 77 and also penalty (not qualified) under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. It appears from the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the order in original ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t obtained Service tax Registration and provided taxable service in the category Business Auxiliary Service. It is also alleged that the Noticee have not declared the taxable value and not paid Service Tax in suppression of materials facts. The Noticee, also have not disputed the allegation rather admitted and made payment of Service Tax including interest before the show cause notice has been issued. On examination of the records available I find the allegations have been substantiated on the basis of the evidences brought on record during investigation. I, therefore find the charges framed in the show cause notice are well founded and justified. I also find that the Noticee have not obtained registration in the category of Business Auxili....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lty @2% on the outstanding tax per month on the Noticee starting with the first day after the due date till the date of actual payment of the outstanding amount of Service Tax under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. I also impose a penalty Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only on the Noticee under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 5. I further impose a Penalty of Rs. 7,73,530/- ( Rupees Seven Lakhs seventy three thousand five hundred thirty) only on the Noticee under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Sd/- (S.P Chakraborty) Joint Commissioner (Tech) C. No. V-ST-21/ADJ/2009/1058-61 Dated: 17/8/10 To, M/s Rani Motors (Authorized Maruti Dealer) Nongthymmai, Jelly's S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed for sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within 3 (three) months. Mr. R Deb Nath, further contended that even if the appellant is prevented for sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the limitation period of three months, the Collector of Excise (Appeals) can extend the period of limitation to the extent of only three months. Since the impugned order was passed on 17.08.2010, the said appeal filed by the appellant is barred by limitation inasmuch as, the said appeal was filed after the expiry of six months from the date of passing the order i.e. 17.08.2010. 5. Now, the question to be decided in the appeal filed by the appellant before the Collector of Excise (Appeals) is as to whether the period of limitation is to ....