2019 (4) TMI 32

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 01.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner of CGST & CX (Audit- II)/, Mumbai. Imposition of penalty Under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, is the subject matter of present dispute. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in providing "Rent-a-Cab Service", which is categorized as a taxable service, defined Under Section ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has set aside the penalty imposed under Section 77 of the Act and partially modified the adjudication order, by reducing the quantum of penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Act to Rs. 35,16,844/-. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The Learned Consultant appearing for the appellant submitted that the delay in payment of s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. 4. On the other hand, the learned AR appearing for Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submitted that since the service tax amount in question was deposited after pointing out of the discrepancy by the department officers, intention of the appellant was manifest in defrauding the Government revenue. Thus, he submitted that the benefit of sub-section (3) o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....service under the taxable category of "Rent-a-Cab" service. As a registered assessee, the appellant was under the statutory obligation to discharge the service tax liability and for filing of periodic ST-3 returns. Admittedly, in this case, the appellant did not comply with the statutory provisions. As a result, the department had initiated show cause proceedings against the appellant. I find that....