TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 268
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Order-in-Original No.96/ST/AC/HQ/Agra/2024-25 dated 25.06.204 and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, wherein following has been held:- "ORDER a. I confirm the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs.1,77,027/-(Rupees One Lakh Seventy Seven Thousand and Twenty Seven Only) against the Noticee under the Section 73 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017 as discussed herein-above. b. I confirm the interest at the applicable rate on the amount of demand confirmed at S. No. (a) above under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017, as discussed here-in above. c. I also impose a penalty of Rs.1,77,027/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Seven Thousan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... @ 15% (Col.4 - Col.5) 1 2 3 4 5 6 2016- 17 1180179 115717 1180179 0 177027 2.5 Demand Cum Show cause notice dated 07.10.2021 was issued to the appellant asking them to show cause as to why:- (i) Service Tax (including cess) amounting to Rs.1,77,027/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Seven Thousand Twenty Seven only) not paid during the period 2016-17 should not be demanded and recovered from them by way of invoking the extended period under the proviso to section 73(1) of the Act read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017; (ii) Interest at the appropriate rates for the relevant period till the actual payment of the Service Tax mentioned at Sr. No. (i) above, should not be demanded and recov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1)(c) and 78 of the Act. 3.3 Authorized Representative reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4.1 I have considered the impugned orders along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of argument. 4.2 Impugned order records the findings as follows:- "5.1 In the instant case, the Service tax demand of 1,77,027/- on receipts of consideration amounting to Rs. 11,80,179/- during the period 2016-17 as reported by the Income Tax department. The appellant has neither submitted defense reply to the impugned demand SCN nor appeared for the personal hearing to bring the facts and figures before the adjudicating authority. On the other hand, the adjudicating authority decided the case ex-parte on the bas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (i) amount of Service tax demand has been reduced to Rs. 23,502/- along with applicable interest under section 75 and equal penalty of Rs. 23,502/-under Section 78 of the Act ibid. (ii) penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed under Section 77(1)(c) has been set aside. 6.0 In view of the above, I modify the impugned order and allow the appeal filed by the appellant with consequential relief, if any." 4.3 I find that Counsel for the appellant prays for waiver of the late fee imposed under Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules and penalties imposed under 78 of the Act. 4.4 Board has vide Circular No 97/8/2007 dated 23.08.2007 clarified as follows in respect of filing of ST-3 returns. "6. Service tax return 6.1 The....