2018 (12) TMI 860 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI – Penalty – Demand alongwith interest and penalty appropriated in the adjudication order – Held that:- There is no material of miss-statement or willful suppression of fact with an intent to evade payment of Service Tax – Further, the appellant has paid the entire amount of demand of ₹ 11,465/- alongwith applicable interest and 25% of the penalty imposed under Section 78, which has been appropriated in the adjudication order – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – Appeal No. ST/75127/2018 – FO/76518/2018 – Dated:- 13-8-2018 – Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Sushil Goyal, CA for the Appellant (s) Shri A.K. Biswas, Suptd.(AR) for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri P.K. Choudhary 1. The appellant is a small scale manufacturer of excisable goods and is also engaged in performing job work. They usually carry out process of annealing the materials sent to them by their customers. During the course of audit for the financi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the adjudication order upholding the demand of service tax amounting to ₹ 11,465/- alongwith interest and equal amount of penalty under Section 78. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld the penalty imposed under Section 77 i.e. ₹ 2,75,000/- and a penalty of ₹ 5,000/-. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant company submits that for failure to deposit tax, specific penalty is prescribed in Section 78, which has been imposed by the Adjudicating Authority and also upheld by the First Appellate Authority and which has also been paid by the appellant. It is his submission that maximum penalty upto 100% of the tax amount is imposable and it is never the intention of the Statute to impose unlimited penalties on the assessee. Ld. Consultant further argued that the appellant assessee was under the bonafide belief that being a small scale service provider the threshold limit of ₹ 8,00,000/- was available to th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Accordingly he imposed a penalty of ₹ 1000/- and for the subsequent period i.e. w.e.f. 10.05.2008, upto the date of non-obtaining of ST-3 Return, i.e. 08.02.2012, @200 per day for 1370 days have been calculated which amounts to ₹ 2,74,000/-, has been imposed. He further imposed penalty of ₹ 5,000/- for non-filing of ST-3 Return during the period. On perusal of records, I do not find any material of miss-statement or willful suppression of fact with an intent to evade payment of Service Tax. Further, the appellant has paid the entire amount of demand of ₹ 11,465/- alongwith applicable interest and 25% of the penalty imposed under Section 78, which has been appropriated in the adjudication order. Accordingly, I find that the provisions of Section 80(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 are applicable to the facts of this case. I therefore, set aside the penalties of ₹ 1,000/-, ₹ 2,74,000/- and ₹ 5,000/- imposed under various provisions of Section 77 by i
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =