2020 (2) TMI 907

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ding to the Adjudicating Authority it is 15% of the Service tax amount whereas as per the first appellate authority it has to be 25%. 3. The facts of the appeal in brief are as follows. As per the audit conducted in the month of November, 2015 it has tome to notice of the audit party that the appellants have not paid Service tax for the period April, 2013 to September, 2015 under the Reverse Charge Mechanism on the Royaltee fee paid to a foreign party and accordingly the appellants were directed to deposit the Service tax amount of Rs. 3,83,867/- with interest Rs. 1,51,917/- alongwith penalty of Rs. 38,386/- under Section 76(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, on the same day the Appellants deposited the Service tax amount of Rs. 3....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ginal. 4. The learned General Manager appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the learned Commissioner failed to appreciate that immediately upon being pointed out by the audit party, the Appellants deposited the entire amount of service tax alongwith interest on the same day without any delay and this itself shows the bonafide/genuineness of the appellants, but despite that a show cause notice was issued to the Appellants after three months. According to him since there is no fraud or collusion or willful misstatement on the part of the appellants therefore Section 76 ibid comes in picture which says that if the amount of service tax and interest is paid within 30 days of service of notice then no penalty is payable. And in th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the service tax so demanded. The said proviso prescribing concession in penalty to the extent of 25% of duty demanded subject to payment of all dues within 30 days of the order was introduced with effect from 14.5.2003. Although in the Adjudication order dated 15.7.2016 the said option was given but later when the corrigendum was issued it got diluted. The said corrigendum is issued under which provision of law has not been mentioned anywhere in the said Corrigendum nor I have come across any such provision nor either of the parties able to produce any such provision and therefore the same has rightly been set aside the learned Commissioner. In view of the Corrigendum issued by the Adjudicating Authority, failure of Appellant to pay pena....