TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 284
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s filed by the appellant for waiver of only penalty of Rs. 68,16,271/- imposed under Section 78 of the Act. 2. The fact of the case is that the appellant had been providing services of Manpower Recruitment Supply Agency and cleaning activity service to various customers namely Bajaj Auto Ltd., Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Sheels India Ltd. etc. Pune. On such service the appellant did not discharge the service tax during the period 2009-10 to 2010-11. However after initiation of the investigation by DGCEI officer the appellant have discharged the entire service tax before issuance of show cause notice and the interest was paid subsequent to the demand of show cause notice. Being aggrieved by the order-in-original, to the extent of penal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (ii) Commissioner of C. Ex. & Customs Vs. Port Officer - 2010 (19) STR 641 (Guj.) (iii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs. Jubilant Enpro Pvt. Ltd. - 2016 (46) STR 448 (Tri.-Mumbai) (iv) Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III Vs. Wings Travels - 2017 (47) STR 225 (Tri.-Mumbai) (v) SS Service Providers Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.T. Chandigarh-I - 2017 (47) STR 266 (Tri.-Chan.) (vi) Mindnapore Tyre Retreading Factory Vs. Commr. Of C. Ex., Haldia - 2013 (30) STR 569 (Tri.-Kolkata) (vii) Rinder Tools India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune-I - 2017 (48) STR 154 (Tri.-Mumbai) (viii) Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Commr. (A), S.T., Ahmedabad - 2017 (49) STR 176 (Tri.Ahmd.) (ix) Ram Singh Kanda & Sons Vs. Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2014 (36) STR 196 (Tri.- Ahmd.) (v) 3 Guys Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia, - 2016 (42) STR 443 (Tri.-Kolkata) (vi) Inma International Security Academy P. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Chennai - 2006 (1) STR 289 (Tri.-Chennai) (vii) Jupiter Sea & Air Services Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Chennai - 2006 (3) STR 704 (Tri.-Chennai). 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that the short issue to be decided is that in the facts and circumstances of the case whether the appellant is liable for penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act. From the facts which is not much in dispute, we find that the appellant admittedly collected the service tax from their client and did not deposit the same on due date. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spect of the amount so paid : Provided that the Central Excise Officer may determine the amount of short-payment of service tax or erroneously refunded service tax, if any, which in his opinion has not been 18 paid by such person and, then, the Central Excise Officer shall proceed to recover such amount in the manner specified in this section, and the period of "thirty months" referred to in sub- section (1) shall be counted from the date of receipt of such information of payment. Explanation.1- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the interest under section 75 shall be payable on the amount paid by the person under this sub-section and also on the amount of short payment of service tax or erroneously refunded service tax....