2019 (11) TMI 495

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellant Shri Sudhir B. Mane, Asst. Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER SUVENDU KUMAR PATI: Legality of confirmation of equivalent penalty of Rs. 28,61,269/- by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & GST, Nagpur invoking extended period on duty demand against renting of immovable property with retrospectively effect from 1-6-2007 for the period betw....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed the same on the ground that pre-deposit of 7.5% of penalty was not made and since interest was not paid within six months of the notification of 2012, section 80 of the Finance Act benefit was not extendable to the appellant. Legality of the said order is challenged in this appeal. 3. In the Memo of the appeal during the course of hearing of appeal, Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. M.P.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lopers Pvt Ltd v. CCE (Delhi). 4. Learned Authorised Representative for the respondent Department Mr. Sudhir B. Mane, in response to such submission made on behalf of appellant, submitted that appellant had suppressed those services by not showing in ST-3 Returns and had not intimated to the Department about payment of service tax with interest as per section 73(3) of the Finance Act for which ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... section 80 (2), as was existing during the relevant period permits non imposition of penalty if service tax payable as on 6-3-2012 was paid along with interest in full within six months of Finance Act 2012 coming into force. However, going by the provision containing in section 80(1), which is applicable to the present case of the appellant since there is reasonable cause for the failure on the p....