2019 (5) TMI 233

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ive for the respondent ORDER ANIL CHOUDHARY: The issue in this appeal is whether the Commissioner (Appeals) have rightly refuse to set aside the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, although he has allowed reduction of the penalty amount by 50% in terms of proviso to Section 78. 2. Brief facts are that the appellant is registered with the Service Tax Department for payment of servi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6 229383 498123 03/2013 11526646 1424693 727652 697041 04/2013 2087128 257969 39671 218298 05/2013 6452267 797500 539485 258015 06/2013 4385090 541997 505579 36418 07/2013 3030020 374510 347340 27170 08/2013 3753280 462905 53136 410769 09/2013 4342103 536684 362807 173877 TOTAL 48259158 5964830 3572050 2392780 Am....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er, 2013. Accordingly, the appellant was required to show cause as to why not the service tax short paid, be demanded with interest and penalty was proposed under Section 77, 78 and Section 70 read with Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules. 4. The appellant did not file any reply to the show cause notice. However, Shri Manav Pal, Director of the appellant attended the personal hearing and assured that o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....paid. Being aggrieved, the appellant have preferred appeal before this Tribunal on the ground that the demand is time bar and the penalty under Section 78 has been erroneously retained in part. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant states that the transaction was duly recorded in the books of account maintained in the ordinary course and bills raised were properly reflected in the financial recor....