2023 (10) TMI 994

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the Appellant Shri M. Anukathir Surya, AR for the Respondent ORDER [ Order per : ANIL CHOUDHARY ] Heard the parties. 2. The issue involved in this Appeal is whether the Appellant has been rightly denied the benefit of closure under Sec 73(3) of the Finance Act and further, whether penalty under Sec 77 & 78 has been rightly imposed. 3. The brief facts are that the Appellant is manufactur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch was introduced w.e.f 18.04.2006, Service Tax under reverse charge basis was made applicable. Prior to 18.04.2006, service tax under reverse charge was admitted to be imposed by Revenue through Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rules. However, the same was held to be ultra vires by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of International Shipping Services, which was subsequently confirmed by the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eady to deposit within 3 to 4 days, in view of the weekend. The Appellant also prayed that the matter be closed under Sec 73(3), as they are not disputing and have paid the amount with interest. However, SCN was issued, wherein, there is proposal to appropriate almost matching amount of tax already paid. SCN was adjudicated on contest and the truncated amount of Rs.99,62,570/-, as reduced by the d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or allowing the Appeal with consequential benefits. 8. Learned AR for Revenue relies on the Impugned Order and further states that Appellant should have been vigilant in making tax compliance. In spite of Sec 66A being introduced w.e.f 18.04.2006, Appellant appears to have been careless in making tax compliance. It is further alleged that for closure under Sec 73(1A), the Appellant was required t....