2016 (6) TMI 1494

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Hence a SCN dt. 12.10.2009 was issued to the appellant demanding service tax of Rs. 8,00,660/- leviable on the courier service along with interest and proposing imposition of penalties under Sections 76,77 & 78 of the Act. The notice was adjudicated by the Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai who vide OIO No.8/2011 dt. 28.3.2011 confirmed the demand under Section 73 (2) of the Act along with interest. He imposed penalty of Rs. 5000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 16 lakhs under Section 78 read with Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand and penalty of Rs. 5000/- imposed under Section 77. However, the LAA reduced the penalty imposed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....annot be said that the demand raised is incorrect. Unless ST-3 returns are filed, how come the Adjudicating Authority would know the actual state of affairs of the assessee (appellant). The demand has to be Rs. 8,00,660/- and not as claimed. He relied on the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CCE & Customs Surat Vs Rajeshree Dyg. & Ptg. Mills (P) Ltd., 2014 (305) ELT 443 (Guj.) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has set aside the Tribunal's order of reducing the penalty on the ground that duty demand and interest was not paid before issuance of SCN.  In view of the case law cited, Ld. A.R pleads that impugned order should be upheld and appeal be dismissed. 4. In this case, the penalty of Rs. 16,00,000/- imposed....