2019 (1) TMI 620

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 13.2.2018 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) dismissed the appeal of the appellant on limitation without going into the merits of the case. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are registered under the service tax for the se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dated 19.8.2016 ordered for recovery of the service tax of Rs. 23,41,652/- along with applicable interest, penalties under Section 77(2), 77(1)(c) and Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were imposed. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) who rejected the same on time bar. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned couns....

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 liability along with voluntary computation and payment of interest and reduced penalty @ 25% of the service tax liability confirmed, though in the absence of determination of actual interest payable from the department. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no fault on the part of the appellant who has computed the interest and paid the same whereas it is responsibility of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oys Ltd.: 2017 (346) ELT 192 (Bom.) He further submitted that the finding of the Superintendent in the said letter that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of reduced penalty @ 25% is tenable under law. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the i....