2019 (9) TMI 1394

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t : Mr.K. Poddar, Authorised Representative ORDER RACHNA GUPTA: None appeared for the appellant. Perusal of record/order-sheets reflect repeated request for adjournment by the appellant, which are sufficient to show deliberate delay on part of appellant. However, record also bears the written submissions by the appellant. Since the appeal is pending since June, 2018, I proceed to adjud....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated 27th March, 2015, wherein the penalties under Section 76, as well as 78 of the Finance Act were imposed upon the appellant. The appeal thereof was though rejected, however, the penalty under Section 76 was dropped and the demand of Service Tax was confirmed to the extent of Rs. 9,16,687/-. Still being aggrieved, the appellant preferred this appeal. However, has failed to diligently pursue t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rs. 9,07,073/- was deposited by the appellant alongwith the interest vide GAR 7 challan dated 19th September, 2013. The show cause notice was issued on 23rd October, 2013. The payment thereof was made voluntarily by the appellant even before the issuance of show cause notice. In such circumstance, there appears no reason for imposition of penalty. 4. Though the adjudicating authorities below h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and circumstances. Hence, the penalty as has been confirmed under Section 78 is liable to be set aside. 5. The amount of service tax since stands already deposited and the license fee as well as commission income as received by the appellant being an amount received on account of discharging business auxiliary services, the same is held to be the liability of the appellant, which stands already....