TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1065
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Authorized Representative (DR) - for the Respondent. ORDER Per. B. Ravichandran The appeal is against order dated 28/03/2013 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur. There is no dispute with reference to tax liability in the present appeal. The only grievance of the appellant is that they have paid full service tax with applicable interest before the adjudication of the tax liability by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce and its correct classification for tax liability. The departmental officers conducted investigation and the notice was issued to demand tax and to impose penalties. The case was adjudicated earlier by the Commissioner who clearly recorded that there is no intention on the part of the appellant to evade payment of service tax. The non-payment of service tax has resulted on account of difference ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o factual and legal position pleaded by the appellant in the earlier round of litigation, before the Tribunal and also before the Original Authority who passed the impugned order. 3. The learned AR reiterated the findings of the Original Authority. He submitted that Section 76 is on a different footing when compared to Section 78. No malafide need be established for penalty under Section 76. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity records that the appellant did not adduce sufficient reasonable cause for failure to pay service tax. We note that the reasonable cause for non-payment of service tax during the material time has already been taken note of by the Original Authority. Further, we also note that the appellant who is a Government of India Undertaking has fully discharged the service tax with applicable interest be....