2022 (5) TMI 428

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erintendent (Authorized Representative) for the Respondent ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant against the Order-in-Appeal No. CS/62/DMN/Vapi-I/11-12 dated 18.10.2011 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the business of providing security services. They have not obtained separate registrations for their branch offices situated....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the dues. It was ordered to disallow, cenvat credit of Rs. 6478/-. Imposed penalty of Rs. 49,64,062/- on the Appellant under Section 78. Imposed Penalty of Rs. 1000/- on Shri Rahul Nanda. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order-in-original. The Appellant is thus before the Tribunal. 3. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. As per the appeal, the appellant submits that confi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....whereas the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand for the period beyond March 2008. The appellant have already paid the entire amount of Service tax involved in the present case. Hence, the bona fide of the Appellants are beyond doubt as they have fully complied with their liability and also shown valid reason for delay in payment of Service tax, which can be attributable to the acco....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4.1 He strongly submits that the adjudicating authority has rightly imposed penalty, as they issued invoice charging service tax from their clients but failed to deposit the same with an intention to evasion of duty. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Salim Travels Vs. Commissioner of CGST &Cx., Mumbai reported in 2019(31) GSTL 64 (Bom) and decision ....