TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 726
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lders of Service Tax Registration and are engaged in rendering taxable services. The appellants filed a refund claim of service tax of Rs. 8,97,340/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand Three Hundred and Forty only) dated 18/12/2017 before the respondent (received on 20/12/2017). In the instant refund claim, it was stated by the appellant that they had paid service tax of Rs. 59,82,624/- (Rupees Fifty Nine Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Four only), interest of Rs. 44,363/- (Rupees Forty Four Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Three only) and penalty of Rs. 8,97,340/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand Three Hundred and Forty only) as per the audit objections. However, later on, they realized that there was no ne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts. He further submitted that there was no suppression on the part of the appellant and therefore, the question of payment of penalty does not arise. He further submitted that the penalty cannot be imposed without issuance of show-cause notice. He also submitted that there was no suppression on their part and the demand was for the normal period and neither the audit had alleged anything regarding suppression of facts. He further submitted that tax and interest was paid before the issuance of show-cause notice and the said amount was paid out of the credit and the said credit was not used. He further submitted that app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s no bar in law to demand service tax under proviso to Section 73 invoking suppression, fraud, willful misstatement etc. even when the demand is within the normal period. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the payment of 15% penalty was voluntary and based on this voluntary payment, show-cause notice was waived and there was no protest raised by the appellant while making the payment. Further, I find that as per the Board clarification dated 18/08/2015, payment of penalty without issuance of show-cause notice was in accordance with law. Further, I find that the claimant had filed a declaration while seeking waiver of show-cause notice that the amount paid will not b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... right, cannot go back on the same again and rejected the refund claim. .... 11. The appellant had also argued that they had sufficient balance of credit and accordingly, there arise no liability of interest, there was no suppression on their part, demand was for normal period etc. For the reasons stated above, I note that no such questions can be determined at this stage. It was essentially the appellant who has chosen not to litigate further and paid the penalty. There is no dispute that Department has not followed any procedure as per audit manual like issuances of FAR, discussion/consultation with the appellant. It is anybody's guess that the appellant was quite aware of the fact that for what reasons the penalty was b....