TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 5
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bhiwadi, Alwar is assailed by M/s Navratan Pipe and Profile Ltd. the appellant, Alwar in this appeal. 2. We have heard Shri Apoorv Philips, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Jaya kumari, learned authorised representative appearing for the department and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) has committed an illegality in remanding the matter to the original authority and he had no legal authority to remand the matter during the relevant period. Learned authorised representative appearing for the Revenue submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not remand the matter at all but rejected the appeal and upheld the order in orig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Notice, the relevance of raising any such objection gets negated. 7. In the light of the facts of the case, the observation made in the impugned order and the Grounds of Appeal filed by the appellant is becomes clear that neither the taxability of the services in question nor the penalty imposed therein has been challenged. The only objection raised by the appellant is that they have made an excess payment towards Service Tax and have already deposited the amount of interest and penalty. I find that in para 19 of the impugned order, the original authority has though accepted the fact that an amount of Rs. 38,045/- has been deposited by the appellant towards penalty, yet the appropriation of the said amount has not been made. Likew....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was upheld and the appeal filed by the appellant was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that they are contesting the penalty imposed on the appellant under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 the Finance Act. 7. Learned authorised representative appearing for the Revenue submitted that the appellant had not contested the imposition of penalty before the Commissioner (Appeals) at all and, therefore, no relief was granted was granted nor was the question examined and discussed. 8. A perusal of the order in appeal shows that four grounds were taken before the Commissioner (Appeals). These grounds are reproduced in paragraph 3 of the impugned order as below: (A) That th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....firmed under the proviso to sub-section 73 (1) of the Finance Act. It further provides an option to deposit only 25% of the penalty subject to some conditions. The penalty imposed by the Assistant Commissioner in the Order in Original is as per the mandatory provisions of section 78 of the Finance Act. We, therefore, find no error in the Commissioner (Appeals) not dealing with the penalty. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant had deposited the service tax by challan dated 14.11.2011. Learned authorised representative for the revenue submitted that this is not a ground taken before the Commissioner (Appeals). 13. A perusal of the impugned order and the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) by....