2021 (12) TMI 1014

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Respondent to the extent of dropping 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 ta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....MEDIA LTD vs. CGST AND EXCISE KOLKATA SOUTH, 2020-TIOL-1113-CESTAT-KOL (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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the person chargeable with the service tax, or the person to whom such tax refund has erroneously been made, may pay the amount 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Finance Act was dropped in toto. He also relied upon the following case laws : (i) Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. v. U.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 ....