TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 1203
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts confirmation by the Commissioner (Appeals) is assailed in this appeal. 2. Factual draw back of the case as reveals from the appeal memo is that appellant had been providing Tour Operator Service which was made taxable w.e.f. 16th May 2008 but claims to be unaware of the same as was not a qualified person managing a sole proprietor-ship concern. In February 2010, during EA audit of M/s. Gateway Terminals India Pvt Ltd, it was noticed by the tax authorities that appellant had not charged Service Tax in the bills raised by it in the name of M/s. Gateway Terminals India Pvt Ltd and no payment has been made to that effect. Being informed it had obtained service tax registration on 17th March 2010 and discharged all service tax dues to the e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an be noticed that altogether Rs. 6,68,238/- was paid towards interest and Rs. 5,52,912/- was shown in the challan under the code meant for payment of interest. With reference to judicial decisions in the case of Virtual Marketing (India) Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai (2016) 11 TMI 18 and in the case of Veer Jawan Security Services v. CCE 2018 (3) TMI 272, he argued that invocation of extended period is not justified and the order imposing penalty U/s 77 as well as u/s 70 of FA 1994 is not sustainable in law since there was no proposal in the show cause notice for imposition of such penalty for which the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is required to be set aside. 4. In response to such submissions, Learned Auth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment. The dispute therefore remained confined to payment of interest component which appellant claims to have paid but respondent Department denies to have received the same. Further going by the submissions of appellant, it is very much clear that appellant had even paid its other service tax liability for extending services to one NSICT. Both the show cause notice as well as adjudication orders clearly indicate that appellant had not collected the required service tax from the customers. Therefore, its submission that it had not availed the benefits of cum duty u/s 67 of FA 1994 to which it was entitled has its force. This coupled with discharge of service tax liability against services extended to other service receivers for which no dut....