TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 1177
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....redit of Rs. 7,12,626/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs Twelve Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Six only) was disallowed to the Appellant by the Adjudicating Authority under Order-in-Original No.05/Joint Commr./ST/Kol/2010-11 dated 04.05.2010 and an equivalent amount of penalty was also imposed upon the Appellant. Ld.Consultant argued that out of total demand confirmed an amount of Rs. 4,01,204/-(Rupees Four Lakh One Thousand Two Hundred and Four only) was pertaining to credit of Service Tax taken by the Appellant where bills between the Appellant and the service provider was not settled. That on merits Appellant had a good case, but to buy peace this issue was not agitated on merits and amount along with interest was paid. It is the case of the ld.Consu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which payment was made by Appellant s headquarters. That this amount pertaining to telephonic services and documents in the name of Head Office are petty in nature, therefore, Appellant is not contesting the same, but no penalty is imposable as there are conflicting judgements on this issue. 3. Shri A.K.Biswas, Supdt.(AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that Cenvat Credit of Rs. 4,01,204/-(Rupees Four Lakh One Thousand Two Hundred and Four only) has not been contested by the Appellant on merits before the First Appellate Authority and only imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was contested by the Appellant in view of Section 73(3) where amounts were paid before the issue of show cause notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant. The Order-in-Appeal dated 15.02.2016 to that extent is required to be set aside. 6. So far as credit of Rs. 4,01,204/-(Rupees Four Lakh One Thousand Two Hundred and Four only) taken by the Appellant is concerned, it is observed that the same was pertaining to taking Service Tax credit taken on the basis of documents for which no payments were received by the service provider. It is observed from the Order dated 15.02.2016 passed by First Appellate Authority that this issue was not agitated before the lower authorities on merits. First Appellate Authority however held that penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was correctly imposed. It is observed from the case records that Appellant was under a bona fide belief that Cenva....