2020 (1) TMI 845

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....2016 was right in imposing penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 when the service tax and interest has already and duly been paid even before issuance of the show cause notice? (II) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal in its order dated 05.05.2016 was right in relying upon the decisions passed in CCE, Surat Vs. Rajeshree Dyg. And Ptg. Ltd. and Principal CST-II Vs. Top Security Ltd. even though the said decisions are not relevant to decide the present controversy between the parties? (III) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in partly allowing the appeal of the Appellant and to impose penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994? (IV) That other substantial questions of law will be formulated and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hority. Since, in the present case, the appellant had failed to deposit 25% of the penalty as provided under Section 78 of the Act, the tribunal had rightly dismissed the claim of the appellant claiming benefit under Section 78 of the Act. Facts in the present case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the period in dispute is from July, 2007 to October, 2007 with regard to the service tax and interest liable to be paid by the appellant with regard to the commission paid by the appellant to its overseas agent. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 31.07.2008. Rs. 86,801/- were deposited by the appellant towards service tax and interest with regard to commission paid to overseas agent for the period July, 2007 on 30.07.2008. Rs. 8,14....