2017 (10) TMI 966

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ized Representative (DR) Order Per. B. Ravichandran :- The appeal is against order dated 29/07/2011 of Commissioner (Appeals-II), Jaipur. The appellant is only contesting the imposition of penalty on them under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 by the Original Authority and confirmed by the impugned order. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants have availed services of fore....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Rs. 4,14,036/- and appropriated the amount already with interest. He imposed penalty of equivalent amount on the appellant. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order except allowing the recalculation of tax liability considering the provision of Section 67 (2), extending benefit of cum-tax valuation. The penalty also was accordingly reduced to the equivalent amount. 2.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion got settled only after the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Indian National Shipowners Association vs. Union of India reported in 2009 (13) S.T.R. 235 (Bom.). The said decision was on 11/12/2008. As such, the appellants cannot be put to penalty in case of this nature. 3. The learned AR reiterated the findings of the lower Authorities submitted that the appellant neither took regist....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s did not get themselves registered nor filed returns or paid service tax liability. Hence, extended period was invoked. I find no justifiable reason has been recorded in the show cause notice other than such reasons mentioned above. It would appear that the closure under Section 73 (3) was not considered, only on the ground that the service tax liability paid by the appellant was for period sprea....