2017 (4) TMI 592

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ervice tax liability of Rs. 22,59,839/-. On adjudication, original authority confirmed the demand under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest liability thereon and imposed equal penalty under Section 78 ibid. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of original authority. 2. Aggrieved, appellants have filed this appeal before this forum. 3. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Ld. Advocate Shri M. Karthikeyan appearing on behalf of appellant submits that they are not contesting the tax liability which they have paid in 2012. However, they are praying for waiver of penalty in view of indigent circumstances of the appellant. He points out that even in para-2.1 of the SCN, it is indicated that they had paid ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e draws attention to paras-2 and 2.2 of OIO to emphasize that they had made payments on earlier occasions belatedly and they would have paid belatedly for this period also even if said audit visit had not occurred. He also draws attention to para-3.21 of the OIO available at pages 37, 38 of the appeal folder wherein adjudicating authority has indicated that he was not inclined to accept the plea of the assesee for waiver of penalty only on the ground that interest due on the belated payment has not been paid up. 6. I have heard both sides and gone through the facts of the case. 7. I find that lower appellate authority in para-7 of the impugned order has considered the plea of the appellants being a sick unit. He has observed that appellan....