TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 395
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....houdhary The Appellant, M/s B.S.N.L, is in Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. NOI/EXCUS/000/APPL/48/2014 dated 26/02/2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Customs & S.Tax, Noida. 2. The issue involved in this appeal, is whether the imposition of penalty equivalent to service tax under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, is proper or not. 3. The brief facts of the case are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were required to pay an amount equal to 5% or 6% of the value of exempted services under Rule 6 (3)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On such, realization for exempt service was of Rs. 4,39,721/- and attracts service tax of Rs. 29,481/-. It was further mentioned in the show-cause notice dated 29.08.2013 that the appellants have paid a total amount of Rs. 1,08,655/- ( Rs. Rs. 79,174/- + Rs. 29,481/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt of failure to pay service tax in time, suppression of material facts from the department by not reporting in the Service Tax-3 Returns. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that no show-cause notice was required to be issued under Section 73 under the fact that the appellant had already deposited the entire service tax object....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here is no contumacious conduct or no action with intent to evade tax. As such, levy of penalty is bad in law and on merit also. However, the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal and upheld the order-in-original. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal on the ground urged before the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. Heard both sides. 7. Having considered the rival ....