TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 1084
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 77(2) of the Act. 2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are as under: (i) The appellant is the holder of service tax registration for providing short term accommodation service. A Show Cause Notice dated 23.02.2016 was issued by the respondent on the ground that the appellant having collected service tax from its customers from 01.05.2011 onwards, was liable to obtain service tax registration w.e.f. that date and that the service tax collection from its customers ought to have been deposited into Government account; that the appellant having failed on both the above counts, the SCN was required. Thus, in terms of the above SCN, the following propositions were made as to why: " (i) the proviso to Section 73(1) of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ii) the amount of Rs. 90,641/- paid as interest on 31/08/2012 under various Challans dated 31/8/2012 as shown in Table IV above should not be appropriated against the demand of interest at Sl. No (vi) and (vii) above; (ix) penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for their failure to obtain service tax registration on time and for their failure to file the stipulated ST3 returns; (x) penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for non-payment of Service Tax by suppressing facts from the knowledge of the Department with intent to evade payment of Service Tax." (ii) The appellant filed its reply to the above Show Cause Notice, inter alia, contendin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mavathi, Commissioner (DR), appeared for the Revenue. The sole ground of agitation is whether 2nd proviso to Section 78 of the Act was not applicable since the provisions of Section 73(1) were not satisfied in the case on hand. It is the contention of the appellant that the 2nd proviso to Section 78 could be invoked only when the Service Tax, interest and reduced penalty of 15% are paid within 30 days of the notice under Section 73(1) of the Act. In support, the learned Counsel relies on the following decisions: (i) Sri Velmurugan Sago Factory Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Salem 2017 (347) E.L.T. 185 (Tri.-Chennai) (ii) Santhi Casting Works Vs. C.C.E. Coimbatore 2009 (15) S.T.R. 219 (Tri.-Chennai.) (iii) C.C.E. Salem Vs. Best Cheran Spintex I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l not survive particularly as there was some confusion on the duty rates and the continued eligibility of SSI concessions for these appellants. 7. In the result, all the three appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law." 6. In the case of Shriram Epc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai reported in 2014 (35) S.T.R. 564 (Tri.-Chennai), this Bench, after considering an identical issue, concluded as under: "7. I have considered submissions on both sides. It is obvious that the appellant paid entire tax liability and interest. This inference is drawn because the impugned order does not involve demands for these but just imposes penalty for delay in payment. When provisions similar to Section ....