2017 (11) TMI 1332

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lso imposed penalties.  Being aggrieved, the appellant is now before the Tribunal.  The details of the period involved and the demand and penalties imposed in each of the appeal is shown as under:- ST/109/2008 Period involved : June 2005 to September 2006 ST demanded : Rs. 52,71,511/- Penalties    : Sec. 76 - Rs. 100/200 per day Sec. 77 - Rs. 1,000/- Sec. 78 - Rs. 75,00,000/- Paid so far : Rs. 39,55,544/- ST for normal period : Rs. 5,40,951/-   ST/107/2008 Period involved  : October 2006 to September 2007 ST demanded : Rs. 1,52,34,804/- Penalties    : Sec. 76 - Rs. 200 per day     Sec. 7....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... reimburse the service tax to the appellants.  That therefore there was no malafide intention to evade payment of service tax.  Appellants had failed to discharge service tax liability only because the customers failed to reimburse the service tax which resulted in heavy financial burden to the appellants.  That therefore the demand raised invoking the extended period alleging suppression of facts is unsustainable.  He therefore pleaded to set aside the demand for the extended period and also to set aside the penalty. 2.2    With regard to Appeal No. ST/42251/2015, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the demand has been made on the basis of the profit and loss account of the appellants and by comparing the s....