2018 (7) TMI 1374 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI – Penalties – the allegation is that the appellants have made expenditure in foreign currency towards the professional and consultancy charges in respect of which they had discharged the service tax liability – Held that:- Regarding service tax demand of ₹ 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 ₹ 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 befo
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
that the appellants have availed both Cenvat Credit and abatement under Notification 01/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 as amended. For the year 2010-2011 & 2011-2012, the allegation is that the appellants have made expenditure in foreign currency towards the professional and consultancy charges in respect of which they had discharged the service tax liability. Show-cause -cum-demand notice dated 19.09.2014 was issued. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 13,01,708/- for the period 2009-2010 and imposed equal penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. For the period, 2010-2011, he confirmed the demand of ₹ 1,11,745/- and also imposed equal penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. For the period, 2011-20112he confirmed the demand of ₹ 2,56,779/- & ₹ 19,013/- and also imposed equal penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. He also confirmed the demand of ₹ 40,000/- as late fees upon the respondent-assessee in term
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
d that they had deposited the late fees towards late submission of return for the period April, 2011 to September, 2011 and October, 2011 to March, 2012 vide Challan No.00316 and 00320 both dated 22.04.2013. I find that the lower authority has failed to consider the said paid up amount towards late fees in r/o submission of ST-3 Return. I appropriated the said deposited amount to the Govt. exchequer. Further, it appears that the lower authority has also imposed penalty of ₹ 40,000/- upon the notice for delayed submission of return for the above mentioned two terms i.e. from April, 2011 to September, 2011 and October, 2011 to March, 2012 under Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules, 1994 for violation of Section 70 of the Act. On this ground, I find that in Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules, there is provision that Where the assessee has paid the amount as prescribed under this Rule for delayed submission of return, the proceedings, if any, in respect of such delayed submission of return shall b
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =