2015 (12) TMI 1164

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l Kr. Gupta, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Govind Dixit, D.R. for the Respondent JUDGEMENT Per R.K. Singh : These stay applications along with appeals have been filed by the appellants against Orders-in-Original No. 192-194/ST/PKJ/CCE/ADJ/2012 in terms of which the service tax demands (along with interest) and penalties were confirmed : 2. The facts briefly stated are as under: ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e company, they suffered severe financial hardship which disabled them from paying impugned service tax and they had been submitting their ST-3 returns regularly. They also pleaded for the benefit of reduced (25%) of the mandatory equal penalty in terms of proviso to Section 78 of Finance Act. 5. The ld. AR stated that the appellants deliberately did not pay the service tax due in spite of havi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aded that for penalty under Section 78 the benefit of payment of 25% of the mandatory equal penalty as per proviso to Section 78 of the Finance Act should be given to them as the same had not been done in the impugned order. In this regard, we find that the Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad Vs. Ratnam Metals Ltd. - 2013-TIOL-1924-HC-Ahd-CX has held as under: At no stage, ei....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the foregoing, we do not find any merit in the appeals except to the extent that the benefit of 25% of mandatory equal penalty under Section 78 ibid is required to be extended to the appellants. Accordingly the appeals Nos. ST/55809/2013 and ST/55810/2013 relating to Show Cause Notices dated 10.4.2011 and 20.10.2011 are dismissed and appeal No. 55715/2013 relating to the Show Cause Notice date....