2019 (2) TMI 20

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 2006 to March, 2011 vide Order-in-Original No. Raigad/ADC/79/12- 13 dated 26.11.2012 and Order-in-Original No. S.Tax/02 & 03/14-15 dated 03.04.2014 confirming duty demand of Rs. 4,91,892/- along with penalty of equivalent amount as well as late fee of Rs. 40,000/-. In both the orders Rs. 10,000/- each were also awarded as penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The department appeal No. AC/74/HC/Div-IX/STVII/ MUMBAI/15-16 dated 28.03.2016 was also heard together with the above appeals and disposed of by him by dropping duty demand of Rs. 4,37,409/- for the period between April, 2013 to March, 2014 which has not been challenged before this forum. 3. Factual backdrop of the case is that Directorate General of Central Excise ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the appellant. Further, it has been contended by him that as per Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, appellant is liable for payment of 25% tax under "Reverse Charge Mechanism" for which the duty demand made after effective date i.e. 01.07.2012 should have been re-quantified and though the Commissioner (Appeals) had taken that into consideration to drop proceeding for the subsequent period, it has not been re-quantified to assess if appellant's payment of duty is adequate or has fallen short. He placed his reliance on the following decisions:- (i) CCE Vs. First Flight Courier Ltd. - 2011 (22) STR 622 (P & H) (ii) Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore Vs. Motor World - 2012 (27) STR 225 (Kar.) (iii) CCE, Aurangabad Vs. Pendha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e to it, none of the representative for the appellant appeared before the Revenue Authority to submit their statement for which the DGCEI had to obtain such information from service provider M/s Ispat Industries Limited and put the appellant on show-cause notice. Periodic show-cause notices were issued on different financial years as mis-declaration of value of services provided by the appellant was noticed in the ST-3 returns for the financial year 2011-12 and 2012-13 for non-payment of Service Tax as well as failure on the part of appellant to file ST-3 return for the relevant period. Only against 4th show-cause notice for 2013-14 financial year duty demand of Rs. 4,37,409/- was dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals) by extending benefit o....