Commissioner of CGST, Howrah Versus M/s Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd.
Service Tax
2018 (7) TMI 1374 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 20-3-2018
S.T.Appeal No.76963/17 & CO-75146/18 – F/O/75640/2018
Service Tax
SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Shri S. S. Chattopadhyay, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Revenue (s)
Shri Sushil Goyal, C.A. for the Respondent (s)
ORDER
Per Shri P. K. Choudhary :
This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No.102/HWH/ST/2017-18 dated 31.08.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise & CGST, Kol.II.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is registered with the Department as service tax assessee. On scrutiny of the documents, it was observed that the Respondent-Assessee has taken service tax credit amounting to Rs. 13,01,708/- during the period 2009-2010 on the input services. During the period 2010-2011, it was observed that the appellants have ava
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ion 70 of the Finance Act, 1994. A penalty of Rs. 40,000/- for delay in submission of ST-3 Returns was imposed for the period April, 2011 to September, 2011 and October, 2011 to March, 2012 under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has also been imposed under Section 77 for violation of provision of Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994. Since the appellant had already deposited the entire amount of service tax along with interest, the same was appropriated. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the imposition of penalty under Section 77 (2) and Section 78 and regarding imposition of penalty of Rs. 40,000/- for late submission of ST-3 Returns in terms of Section 70 (1), the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed as under :
“12. Regarding the imposition of penalty of Rs. 40,000/- for late submission of return in terms of Section 70 (1) of the Act, I find that the appellant contended that they had deposited the late fees towards late submission of retu
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the penalties.
4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records.
5. I find that regarding service tax demand of Rs. 13,01,708/-, the appellants have reversed the amount. As regards, service tax demand for the period, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, they have paid the entire demand of service tax along with interest and the same stands appropriated by the adjudicating authority. It is also observed that the demand of Rs. 40,000/- being late fees for the service tax return for the period April, 2011 to September, 2011 and October, 2011 to March, 2012, has also been paid and there is no occasion to impose and the separate penalty for the same and the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly set aside the same. Since the appellant-assessee has paid the entire amount of service tax along with interest before issuance of show-cause notice, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly set aside the penalty by invoking the provisions of Section 80.
6. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any reas
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =