2017 (11) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 21.12.2016 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Raipur. 2. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the Service Tax demand of Rs. 57,390/- confirmed for the period 2010-11 is barred by limitation of time, inasmuch as, such demand was confirmed by the Departme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the course of adjudication proceedings. She further submits that since the relevant particulars were duly reflected in the statutory books of accounts, malafides cannot be attributed for imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Thus, she prays that the benefit of Section 80 ibid should be available to the appellant for non-imposition of penalty of Rs. 3,29,325/- confirmed i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....amount was confirmed against the appellant. Since the activities of the appellants were already in the knowledge of the Department at the time of conducting the first audit and admittedly no discrepancies were noticed by the Audit Wing, it cannot be said that there is element of suppression, fraud etc., on the part of the appellant in defrauding the Government revenue. Thus, I am of the view that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ides that in case of fraud, suppression etc. such provisions can only be invoked. Therefore, Section 80 ibid in this case, can be invoked for non-imposition of penalty under Section 78 ibid. Accordingly, the impugned order imposing penalty on the appellant under Section 78 is set aside and the appeal is allowed. 7. Since the appellant submits that the amount towards interest deposited by it had....