TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1012
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arg, Chartered Accountant Present for the Respondent: Shri Kuldeep Rawat, Authorized Representative ORDER Dr. Rachna Gupta The present appeal is filed to assail the Order-in-Appeal No. 171/2023-2024 dated 5.10.2023. The facts in brief, which are relevant for the present adjudication are that the appellant is engaged in providing taxable services. However, based on the third party data pertaini....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....demand of service tax of Rs. 11,16,723/- since the appellant has already paid the service tax of Rs. 9,88,319/- during 2016-2017 and before the issuance of impugned show cause notice that the differential amount of Rs. 1,28,404/- only has to be confirmed against the appellant along with the interest and the equal amount of penalty. Being aggrieved of the amount of penalty imposed that the present ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not been reduced to 25% of the demand confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as the amount of penalty was not paid along with the payment of the amount of service tax and the proportionate interest. Impressing upon no infirmity in the order, the appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival contentions, I have perused the 2nd proviso to Section 78 of Finance Act, it reads as under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r that for penalty to be reduced to 25% the requirement is that the proposed/confirmed amount of service tax should have been paid along with the interest within the period of 30 days of the serving of show cause notice or of the date of receipt of the order confirming the demand. 7. In the present case apparently and admittedly the amount of Rs. 9,88,319/-, out of the total demand of service tax....