2018 (3) TMI 185 – CESTAT BANGALORE – TMI – Penalty – tax alongwith interest paid before issuance of SCN – Held that: – Section 73(3) is very clear as it says that if the tax is paid along with interest before the issuance of the SCN, then in that case, SCN need not be issued – In the present case, it is on account of bona fide mistake that the service tax was not paid and as soon as it was pointed out by the audit party, the assessee paid the service tax along with interest – in the case of Geneva Fine Punch Enclosures Ltd., [2011 (1) TMI 746 – KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], the Hon'ble high Court of Karnataka has held that if the duty is paid along with interest before the issuance of the SCN, then the penalty cannot be imposed – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – ST/CROSS/20958/2017 in ST/ 21501/2017-SM – 23316/2017 – Dated:- 28-12-2017 – Shri SS Garg, Judicial Member Shri Madhusharan, Asst. Commissioner(AR) – For the Appellant Shri K. Parameshwaran, Advocate – For the Respo
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
eals) who accepted the appeal of the assessee and dropped the penalty under Sections 77 and 78. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue has filed the present appeal. On the other hand, the respondent has also filed Cross-objections. 3. Heard both the parties and perused records. 4. Learned AR for the Revenue submitted that the impugned order dropping the penalty under Section 78 is not sustainable in law. He further submitted that the respondent is guilty of suppression of facts which were detected during the audit and if the audit had not taken place, suppression would have gone unnoticed. The learned AR relied upon the decisions in the following cases: i. Sunil Hi-Tech Engineers Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nagpur [2014(36) STR 408 (Tri. Mum.)] ii. Raffles Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, C&ST, Bangalore [Final Order No.22199/2017 dt 21/09/2017] iii. Srishti Software Applications (P) Ltd. +1 Vs. CCE, C&ST [Final order No.22201-22202/2017 dt. 22/09/2017] 5 On the other hand, the learned counsel
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
le and tenable. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following decisions:- i. Bhoruka Aluminium Ltda Vs. CCE [2017(51) STR 418] i. Punj Lloyd Ltd. Vs. CCE [2015(40) STR 1028 (Tri. Del.)] iii. Indusiand Media & Communication Ltd. Vs. CST [2017(5) GSTL 268] iv. ARCGATE Vs. CCE [2017(5) GSTL 281 (Tri. Del) v. CCE Vs. Galaxy Construction Pvt. Ltd. [2017(48) STR 37 (Bom.)] vi. CST Vs. C Ahead Info Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. [2017(47) STR 125 (Kar.)] vii. CCE Vs. Apollo Power Systems (P) Ltd. [2017(347) ELT 71 (Kara)] viii. CCE Vs. Geneva Fine Punch Enclosures Ltd. [2011 (267) ELT 481 (Kar.)] ix. Manipal County Vs. CST [2010(17) STR 474 and which has been upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2014(36) STR J188 x. Landis + GYR Ltd. Vs. CCE [2017(49) STR 637] 6. After considering the submissions of both the sides and perusal of material on record and the various judgments relied upon by the respondent, I am of the consi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =