2019 (8) TMI 970

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed Counsel appearing in support of the appeal presses following questions of law for our consideration : (i) Whether the Tribunal was right in not considering the decision of coordinate bench passed in Ceolric Services V. CCE - 2011 (23) STR 369 to hold that the revised ST3 returns filed by the appellant could not be considered as the same were filed after two years of filing the original ST-3 returns? (ii) Whether non-payment of service tax due to genuine financial difficulty and suo moto payment of part service tax before the start of investigation be equated to willful non-payment of tax leading to imposition of penalty?   (iii) Whether the Tribunal was right in not granting the benefit of Section 80 of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the same course should be followed in the present case. However, the Tribunal did not accept the same and held that the lenient view taken for purposes of not imposing a penalty could not be extended for the period under consideration. Thus, upheld the penalties imposed upon the appellant. (c) Mr. Shetty, learned Counsel appearing in support of the appeal submits that the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 2nd September, 2016 dealing with the period 2004-06 in respect of the appellant on identical facts situation, the penalty imposed by the adjudicating Authority was deleted. This order of the Tribunal dated 2nd September, 2016 had been accepted by the Revenue inasmuch as no appeal there from has been filed. Consequently, the sa....