TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 832
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce Act, 1994. 2. Since the issue in both the appeals are identical, therefore, both the appeals are being disposed of by this present order. The details pertaining to both the appeals are given herein below: Appeal No. OIA No. Penalty u/s 76 Penalty u/s 77 Penalty u/s 78 ST/20932/2016 394-15-16 dt.21.3.2016 Rs.200/- per day till the date of payment of service tax or 2% of service tax, whichever is higher Rs.5,000/- Rs.28,38,211/- ST/21621/2016 157-16-17 dt.28.9.2016 - Rs.5,000/- Rs.23,82,959/- 3. For the sake of convenience, the facts of appeal No.20932/2016 are taken. 3.1 The appellant, a partnership firm, is providing service under the category of 'C & F Agent' to their clients for wall and floor tiles and other related....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se notice. The Commissioner (A) after considering the submissions of both the parties, rejected the appeal and only set aside the penalty under Section 76, subject to payment of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and upheld penalties imposed under the Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed contrary to the provisions of the Act and also contrary to the binding judicial precedents on the same issue. He further submitted that on account of some financial difficulties, the appellant could not pay a portion of the service tax during the period from Fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., he relied upon the following decisions: * Visranthi Builders Vs. CESTAT, Chennai: 2015 (39) STR 785 (Mad.) * Erecon Vs. CST: 2016 (41) STR 538 (Tri.-Ahmd.) * Dhandayuthapani Canteen Vs. CESTAT, Chennai: 2015 (39) STR 386 (Mad.) 7. After considering the submissions of both the parties and on perusal of records, I find that the appellant have failed to pay the service tax during the relevant period but there was no suppression on his part because he has shown the liability of service tax in his balance sheet which has been produced on record. Further, as soon as it was pointed out by the audit, he paid the service tax immediately and thereafter interest was also paid before the adjudication by the first authority. Further, I also fin....