2009 (10) TMI 32

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Shri Sheetal Kumbhatt, Advs., for the appellant. Shri J.S. Shri J.S. Negi, SDR, SDR, for the respondent. [Order per : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical)]. - During the verification of records by the audit party of Central Excise department, it was found that appellants had made payment of service tax belatedly on several occasions during the period from Jan 2005 to March 2007. It was also fou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....07, there was no such delay in payments. (ii) He also submits that it was not only short payment but there were also excess payments during the period and he submits that there were at least 12 instances of such excess payment. (iii) He also submits that since they had paid the interest voluntarily, show cause notice should not have been issued as their case is covered by Section 73, (3) of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... liable to be paid by the service receiver prior to 18.4.2006 in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association vs. UOI reported in 2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom.). He submits that even though the appellants were not liable to pay service tax at all, they had paid the tax on imported Business Auxiliary Services. 3. He further submits that their case is covered by Section 73 as the problem in the s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 73 of Finance Act, 1994, in view of the fact that in this case the show cause notice has been issued only for imposition of penalty under Section 76 and there is no mention of Section 73 at all in the show cause notice. 5. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. The Circular issued by the Board as cited by the learned advocate provides that upto December 2005 penal action may not....