2018 (7) TMI 1118

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... service tax registration under the taxable heading 'Management, Maintenance or Repair Service' as per Section 69 of the Finance Act 1994. During the month of December 2011 Department initiated audit proceedings for the period April 2006 to March 2011 and raised certain queries which was replied by the appellant. However a show-cause notice dated 23.02.2012 was issued to the appellant demanding service tax to the tune of Rs. 1,74,12,367/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Four Lakhs Twelve Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Seven only). The show-cause notice further demanded interest for the period October 2006 to March 2011 under Section 75 amounting to Rs. 5,79,031/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand and Thirty One only) and also propose....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed without appreciating the factual and the legal submissions of the appellant. He further submitted that the learned Commissioner in para 27 of the impugned order provides that appellant has admitted that there has been a delayed payment of service tax during the demand period in certain cases but he completely ignored the further submission made by the appellant on the mistake in the impugned notice with respect to interest quantification. Further the order clearly provides that the appellant has submitted a re-quantification of interest statement for Rs. 3,523/- (Rupees Three Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Three only) but still held that the appellant has not explained the basis of the above quantification. Learned counsel further subm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tice the penalty of Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) was being proposed for not filing the ST-3 returns for the period April 2006 to September 2006, October 2006 to March 2007 to September 2007 and October 2007 to 31/2008. He further submitted that the appellants have filed the ST-3 returns in time but the learned Commissioner has imposed the penalty for non filing of ST-3 returns it is contrary to the show-cause notice itself. He further submitted that in the show-cause notice itself, the Department has annexed various ST-3 return filed with the Department and thereafter they have raised the demand in the show-cause notices. 4. On the other hand the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. After consider....