2018 (6) TMI 1081

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arma, Asstt.Commr. (A.R) for respondent ORDER This appeal has been filed by M/s Rashmi Marketing against Order-in-appeal dt. 05.10.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Nagpur. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant were issued notice demanding short paid service tax of Rs. 14,60,776/- alongwith Penalty u/s 78 on the "Business Auxiliary Services". In addition a separate demand o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1,60,000/- on remaining demand of Rs. 6,39,668/-. The Appellant did not exercise the option of reduced penalty on Rs. 48,893/-. The Appellant thereafter preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against imposition of penalty of Rs. 8,21,105/- imposed u/s 78 and for extending benefit of reduced penalty in terms of clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 78 (1) of the Act. The Commissione....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the fact that both demands were confirmed separately. The demand of Rs. 14,60,776/- pertained to Service tax demand whereas the demand of Rs. 48,893/- pertained to credit of service tax. That both the demands being separate, they cannot be clubbed for the purpose of extending benefit of proviso under Section 78 (1) (ii). He submits that they are eligible for reduced penalty of 25% on amount of Rs....