2019 (5) TMI 1571

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellant Shri Mohd. Altaf, Authorized Representative for Respondent ORDER ARCHANA WADHWA The challenge in the present appeal is only to imposition of penalty of Rs. 16,23,280/- under Section 78 of the Act and of Rs. 10,000/- each in terms of Section 77(1) (a) and 77(2) of the Act. 2. After hearing both the sides duly represented by learned advocate Shri Vaibhav Dixit appearing on beha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... demand and imposing penalty which order stands confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant is not contesting the demand. However, he submits that inasmuch as the same were deposited before the issuance of show cause notice even though the interest was deposited subsequent to passing of the order, no show cause notice should have been issued to the appel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ecting service tax from their client but were not crediting the same to the Central Government. The said fact came into light only when the audit was conducted in the assessee factory. It is only after detection, the appellant deposited the service tax. It is also on record that the interest on the said service tax was not paid by the appellant till the disposal of the appeal before Commissioner (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....travention of any provisions with intent to evade payment of service tax. As such the issue to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether it is a simple case of non-payment of service tax, which might have occurred on account of any bona fide belief entertained by the assessee. Admittedly the appellant was collecting the service tax from their clients. However, instead of depositing the ....