2018 (11) TMI 453 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – Time limitation for filing appeal – Demand of Interest on the late payment of service tax – Held that:- The Commissioner (Appeal), in the impugned order has not considered the aspect of limitation as demand is raised for the period from 2009 to 2012, vide the impugned Show Cause Notice on 29/1/2017 – the demand is well beyond the period of time limit prescribed under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – Appeal No. E/52494/2018-EX (SM) – Final Order No. 53173/2018 – Dated:- 25-10-2018 – Mr. Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) Shri Prashant Sukhla, Adv. for the appellant Shri P.R. Gupta, DR. for the respondent ORDER Per: Bijay kumar The appellant h
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
found that the appellant has failed to discharge service tax on the service provided for value of ₹ 35,79,315/- and thus there was no payment of service tax amounting to ₹ 3,63,669/-. For being pointed out, the appellant has paid the said amount on 23/11/2012. Thereafter, the Revenue has demanded the interest on the late payment of service tax by the noticee. The appellant has not paid the interest as demanded by the Revenue and accordingly, they were visited with the Show Cause Notice No. V(ST)3-81/SCN/Petromarine/2016 dated 29/5/2017. This case was adjudicated and the amount was confirmed. The appellant was not successful in appeal before Commissioner (Appeal) and hence this appeal. 3. Ld. Advocate, on behalf of the appellant
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ct, 1994. He further relied on the para 7.1 of the impugned order which is reproduced as below: 7.1 As such I do not find any substance in contention of the Appellant that they Service Tax calculation chart was not provided to them. This act of the Appellant shows the ignorance of law in their part and ignorance of law has no excuse. The Appellant has also requested to void the interest. In this regard I find that there is no any provision to void the liability of interest in any circumstances. Therefore, no relief on this account can be granted to the Appellant. As such I hold that the confirmation of interest on payment of service tax after being pointed out by the Audit is justified . Accordingly he justified the impugned order. 4. I hav
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =