2022 (6) TMI 206

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Sharma, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. Mahesh Bhardwaj, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Heard the parties. 2. The issued involved in this appeal is whether the penalty under Section 78 have been rightly imposed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that during the course of audit of the appellant having Service Tax registration No. AAACU1557DST001, it was noticed that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oposing therein recovery of Service Tax of Rs. 3,97,268/- alongwith interest under proviso to Section 73(1) and Section 75 of the Act, respectively and appropriation of Service Tax of Rs. 3,21,000/- and interest of Rs. 79,309/- against the demand. Imposition of penalty under Section 78 ibid was also proposed. After following the due process, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand along wi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rdinary course of business. It is further admitted fact that upon pointing by Audit that service tax is chargeable on the low volume compensation of Rs. 21,40,000/- under Section 66 E(e) of the Finance Act, the appellant deposited the tax alongwith interest, without any demur on 16/05/2018. The show cause notice was issued much after on 16/05/2019. Learned Counsel further relies on Section 73(3) o....