TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 11
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....offered by him on 17/07/2006 and 18/07/2006 and proceeded to confirm the demand for unspecified service tax amount with interest thereon and also imposed penalties under various Sections of Finance Act, 1994. This order was challenged by the appellants and the order passed by learned Commissioner(Appeals) is not on record before me. 2. Apparently the Commissioner(Appeals) remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority who passed another order on 18/07/2008. Since the findings are very short and it is very relevant for future discussion, the same are reproduced below:- I have carefully gone through the records of the case and the submission made by the assessee at the time of personal hearing. A case was registered ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o conclude that the assessee has paid the amount and has also filed the return though belatedly. The assessee has himself quantified and paid the amount and has also filed the return, as the SCN was issued for the non filing of the return, I conclude that the amount quantified by the assessee is correct. Further as the assessee has delayed payment of the tax and has filed the ST 3 returns late he is liable for penalty under the provisions of Section 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. This order was challenged by the appellants before the learned Commissioner(Appeals) who vide his order dt. 26/10/2009, rejected the appeal for failure to deposit the amount of penalty as directed by him. Even on merits, he held that penalty is sustain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the table in the finding and submits that returns were filed on 01/02/2006 and 22/05/2006. He submits that in the absence of returns being filed, in the show-cause notice amount could not be specified, and therefore the confirmation of demand for unspecified amount and imposition of penalty is in order. When the returns were filed belatedly, the Department could not have been aware of the services rendered by the appellant and non-payment of service tax on the same. Therefore the suppression has been correctly invoked. Nevertheless in view of the fact that returns were filed belatedly, the penalty under Section 76 is sustainable. Both sides could not indicate the dates on which the service tax was paid, whether it is after the issue of sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee. It is a statutory requirement that amount to be paid has to be indicated in the show-cause notice and in the adjudication proceedings, the adjudicating authority is required to determine the amount payable as per the provisions of Section 73(2) of Finance Act, 1994. Therefore I find that the submission of learned counsel that confirmation of the demand or confirmation of the amount paid and appropriation thereto is totally incorrect and not valid is correct. Once there is no amount specified in the show-cause notice, as submitted by the learned counsel, the only action available at this stage is to treat the show-cause notice as having been issued only for the purpose of not filing the returns. Therefore as submitted by the learned ....