2018 (6) TMI 1015
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The Appellant-Assessee has filed this Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ['Act', for short] read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 against the Order passed by the learned Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ['CESTAT', for short] on 06.03.2017 in ST.26989/2013-SM 'Celmech Engineering Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Mangalore', upholding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Four Thousand Six Hundred and Fifteen Only) from the penalty of Rs. 18,57,069/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand and Sixty Nine only) imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act. Further I also find that in the case of IWI Crogenic Vaporization System India Vs. CCE, Cus. and ST, Vadodara-II 2015-TIOL-1458- CESTAT-AHM, this Tribunal has held that if the service tax has been recovered f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he service recipient though belatedly and the documents relating to the same was produced before the learned Tribunal but ignoring the same, the learned Tribunal has upheld the penalty as imposed by the learned Commissioner [Appeals] by the impugned Order. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant, we are satisfied that no question of law arises in the present appeal filed by the Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he service recipient or the customer and not paid to the Government Treasury in time and therefore Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 stood clearly attracted and the amount of penalty as reduced by the Commissioner [Appeals] was upheld by the learned Tribunal also. 6. In our considered opinion, no question of law arises in the present appeal for consideration by this Court. Appeal is therefore....
TaxTMI