TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 1014
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the demand of Rs. 65,82,774/- under Rule 6 of the CCR, 2004 and confirmed the demand of Rs. 10,61,419/- along with interest and penalty with an option to pay reduced penalty @ 25% as laid down in proviso to Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The Revenue is in appeal against the above order of the first appellate authority to the extent of dropping of demand under Rule 6 of the CCR, 2004. The Revenue is also in appeal against the option of reduced penalty of 25% given by the Ld.Commissioner (Appeals). The Respondent has filed cross objection only for the penalty confirmed by the first appellate authority though Service Tax and interest have already been paid by the Respondent during service tax audit and they are not disputing it any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (b) DLF PROJECT LIMITED Versus C.C.E. & S.T., GURGAON-I 2020 (38) G.S.T.L. 56 (Tri. - Chan.) (c) ARCGATE Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAIPUR-II (2017 (5) G.S.T.L. 281 (Tri. - Del.) (d) Santhi Casting Works v. CCE [2009 (15) STR 2019 (Tri - Chennai)] (e) Commissioner of CGST, Howrah Vs. M/s. Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. In FO No. 75640/2018 (f) Bhoruka Aluminium Limited versus Commissioner of C. Ex. &ST. ,Mysore 2017 (51) STR.418 (TRI. - Bang.) (g) Sen brothers Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur 2014 (33) STR 704 (Tri. - Kolkata) 4. The ld.D.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue, reiterates the grounds of appeal and agrees to the submission made by the Ld. Advocate as regards demand under Rule 6 of the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of such service tax, chargeable or erroneously refunded, on the basis of his own ascertainment thereof, or on the basis of tax ascertained by a Central Excise Officer before service of notice on him under sub-section (1) in respect of such service tax, and inform the [Central Excise Officer] of such payment in writing, who, on receipt of such information shall not serve any notice under sub-section (1) in respect of the amount so paid........" In the instant case of the Respondent, the Department has mechanically issued SCN alleging suppression of facts without according any reasons for such allegation. We find that the Tribunal in the case of M/s FAIRFEST MEDIA LTD vs. CGST AND EXCISE KOLKATA SOUTH, 2020-TIOL-1113-CESTAT-KOL, held as- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....O.I. [2013 (29) S.T.R. 9 (Del.)] = 2012-TIOL-966-HC-DEL-ST (ii) Amit Sales v. C.C.E. [2009 (13) S.T.R. 165 (Tri.-Del.)] = 2008-TIOL-1749-CESTAT-DEL (iii) Jindal Saw Ltd. (IPU) v. C.C.E. [2013 (30) S.T.R. 490 (Tri.- Ahmd.)] (iv) C.S.T., Bangalore v. Motor World [2012 (27) S.T.R. 225 (Kar.)] = 2012-TIOL-418-HC-KAR-ST (v) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. C.C.E., Mumbai-II [2012 (25) S.T.R. 161 (Tri.-Mumbai)] (vi) C.C.E. & S.T., LTU, Bangalore v. Adeco Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd. [2012 (26) S.T.R. 3 (Kar.)] = 2011-TIOL-635- HC-KAR-ST (vii) Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Rajkot [2013 (287) E.L.T. 433 (Tri.-Ahmd.)]. 6. On the other hand, the learned AR submitted that the appellant is guilty....