TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 377
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xable services. The appellant though made royalty payments to the suppliers abroad during the period 2013-14 to 2015-16 had not discharged service tax on the said royalty payment under reverse charge mechanism. During audit, non-payment of service tax was pointed out and the appellant discharged service tax of Rs.5,23,744/- and Rs.2,21,771/- with interest for the period 2013-14 to 2015-16 when pointed out by the Audit Wing in May and June 2016. 3. Later, the very same issue was pointed out during the audit in Feb & April 2018 by the Monitoring Committee and appellant paid the service tax of Rs.25,04,155/- along with interest on 2.5.2018 on royalty payments during April 2016 to June 2017. Further proceedings were dropped. 4. After 2 ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-. In the operative part of the said order it was held that the proceedings initiated in SCN No.56/20 dt. 29.12.2020 are concluded. 6. Against such order of confirming penalty of 15% (on Rs.3,95,743), the appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA No.29/2022 dt. 22.4.2022 upheld the confirmation 15% on Rs.3,95,743/-. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed Appeal No.ST/40440/2022. 7. In the OIO dt. 15.04.2021, the adjudicating authority held that no penalty is imposable in respect of Rs.25,04,156/-. However, appellant by abundant caution had paid up 15% of penalty (Rs.25,04,256/-) under protest to the tune of Rs.3,75,623/-. Pursuant to OIO dt. 15.4.2021, the appellant filed a refund applicatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at extended period is invokable, there is no finding rendered by the adjudicating authority that penalty under Section 78 is sustainable for the reason of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of service tax. It is argued by the counsel that appellant had paid 15% penalty only as an abundant caution and there was no admission of the liability to pay any penalty. It is prayed that the penalty of 15% on Rs.3,95,743/- may be set aside. 9. With regard to the refund claim of Rs.3,75,623/- the learned counsel submitted that the adjudicating authority has categorically held that appellant is not liable to pay penalty on Rs.25,04,156/- as the same was paid as full and final settlement of audit objection. The refund claim is filed for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it cannot be said that the invocation of extended period is without basis. Further, the short payment of Rs.3,95,743/- has come to the knowledge of the department only on the information received from the IT Department. The penalty of 15% imposed on this amount is correct. The findings in the impugned OIA dt. 26.8.2022 was reiterated by the Ld. A.R and prayed that the appeals may be dismissed. 12. Heard both sides. 13. The issue in Appeal ST/40440/2022 is with regard to 15% penalty imposed on Rs.3,95,743/- for the period April 2015 to June 2017. On perusal of the SCN dt. 29.12.2020 though it is alleged that the appellant has suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of duty, there is no specific averment as to the facts suppresse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....service tax with interest was paid by the appellant as early as in 2018. The penalty on this amount was paid as an abundant caution when SCN was issued. This cannot be considered as admission of liability to pay penalty. After making the payment, the appellant has filed reply to SCN and contested the issue. The adjudicating authority vide OIO dt. 15.4.2021 held that no penalty is required to be imposed under Section 78 in respect of Rs.25,04,156/- for the reason that when the audit pointed out that the amount of service tax to be paid on the royalty is Rs.25,04,156/- the appellant has paid the amount with interest. If the audit had informed that the appellant has to pay Rs.28,99,899/- (Rs.25,04,156 + Rs.3,95,743/-) the appellant would have ....