M/s. Binny Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai
Service Tax
2019 (1) TMI 568 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 10-1-2019
Appeal No. ST/41095/2017 – Final Order No. 40051/2019
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
Ms. Parimala Devi, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Brief facts are that the appellants are providing services of Storage and Warehousing service, Cargo Handling service, Renting of Immovable Property service and GTA. During the course of audit, it was noticed that they had short-paid service tax on various services and also had wrongly availed abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST in respect of GTA s
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ng pointed out by the audit. Subsequently, before issue of show cause notice, the tax liability for the year 2010 – 11 was also paid. Interest was also paid except for an amount of Rs. 1,02,051/- which was to be quantified. The same has also been paid up before the passing of the adjudication order. She submitted that the delay in payment will not attract the ingredients of section 78 to impose penalty. Since substantial amount of the demand along with interest has been paid up before issuance of show cause notice, the benefit of Section 80 may be extended to the appellant. She relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula Vs. M/s. Krishna Cylinders – 2015 (1) TMI 1197 – CESTAT New Delhi a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
he penalties imposed. The appellants have paid up the entire tax liability along with interest. The amount of Rs. 34,24,678/- has been determined and confirmed by the authorities below. The adjudicating authority has imposed equal penalty under section 78. The appellant has established that they had paid up the entire service tax along with interest even though belatedly. It is submitted that the delay in payment was due to financial hardship and there was no intention to evade payment of service tax. In fact, there is nothing unearthed by the audit team. The entire demand has been quantified as reflected in the accounts of the appellant. The appellants have established reasonable cause for not paying the service tax and I am of the view th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =