2016 (1) TMI 395

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per Anil Choudhary 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ore, it appeared to Revenue that the appellants 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ctions 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 on account 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 ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t and the impugned order should be set aside as there 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). ....