2019 (5) TMI 666

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nancial Year 2014-15 they have not discharged their total service tax liability. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 18.02.2016 demanding differential service tax of Rs. 45,66,699/- for the period October, 2014 to March, 2015 in terms of section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. It was also proposed to appropriate the amounts already said to have been paid by them against this demand. Further, it was also proposed to demand interest and impose penalties under section 76 & 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. After following due process, the lower authority confirmed the demand and interest and imposed penalties as proposed. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the first appellate authority who upheld the order of the lower authority an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot in any way indicate that the amounts were paid towards the unpaid service tax for the financial year 2014-15. Therefore, the adjudicating authority as well as the first appellate authority were correct in confirming the demand and imposing penalties. He further, submits that to the extent service tax was already paid by the appellant either in cash or through Cenvat, the demand has been reduced by the original authority himself. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal and the same needs to be rejected. 5. I have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records. As far as the contention of the appellant that section 73(1B) of the Finance Act, 1994 applies to them is concerned, I find that this was inserted with effect ....