2017 (4) TMI 806

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Kumar Singh, Supdt (AR), for Respondent Per: Anil Choudhary The present appeal is filed by the appellant-assessee against Order-in-Appeal No.115-ST/MRT-II/2011 dated 18/05/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Meerut-II. The issue in this appeal is whether penalty under section 76, have been rightly imposed. 2. As per the show cause notice dated 11/04/2008, i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rvices and thus have paid three-times of Service Tax than the actual liability. The SCN was adjudicated vide Order-In-Original dated 31/12/2010 and the proposed penalty under Section 76 was confirmed. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) who was pleased to reject the appeal. Being further aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 4. The l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rvice tax payable, after abatement, works out to Rs. 3,73,204/- on the GTA service received. Whereas the appellant have deposited Rs. 14,11,478/-. In this fashion, the appellant have deposited excess Service tax of Rs. 24,12,289/- + Rs. 11,79,863/-. These excess paid amounts of Service tax, were adjusted by the appellant in the subsequent return period as stated by learned Counsel. The learned Cou....