EASTERN SHIPPING AGENCY Vs. CST AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against Order -in -Appeal No. 285/2011(STC)/K.ANPAZHAKAN/Commr.(A)/Ahd, dt. 11.11.2011. The brief facts of the case are that after having scrutinized the documents submitted by the appellant, it appeared that they had not paid the Service Tax on taxable service provided by them, hence a show cause notice dt. 16.04.2009 was issued to the appellant proposing demand for Service Tax of Rs. 1,83,220/ - along with interest and imposition of penalties under Section 76, 77 & 78 of Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The proposals under the said show cause notice was accepted by the adjudicating authority and under his Order -in -Original No. SD -02/OIO -244/09 -10, dt. 31.03.2010/06.04.2010 had confirmed the Service Tax of Rs. 1,83,220/ - along with interest at applicable rate and also imposed penalty of Rs. 200/ - per day or @ 2% of the Service Tax amount per month whichever is higher (restricted to the amount of Rs. 1,83,220/ -) under Section 76 of the Act; penalty of Rs. 5,000/ - under Section 77 of the Act, and penalty of Rs. 1,83,220/ - under Section 78 of the Act.

(2.) IN response to the said Order -in -Original No. SD -02/OIO -244/09 -10, dt. 31.03.2010/06.04.2010, the appellant had on 30.04.2010 paid "under protest" a total amount of Rs. 3,59,100/ - to the Government exchequer which included Rs. 1,83,220/ - against Service Tax, 1,25,075/ - against interest, Rs. 5,000/ - against penalty under Section 77, Rs. 45,805/ - against penalty under Section 78 (25% of the penalty amount Rs. 1,83,220/ -). The appellant had not paid anything against penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Act.

(3.) ON receipt of order of first appellate authority, the appellant filed a refund claim with the lower authorities for the amount of excess Service Tax paid by them on being pointed out by the Audit party. The said refund claim was rejected on the principle of unjust enrichment and credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. Aggrieved by such an order, the appellant preferred an appeal before first appellate authority. The first appellate authority also did not find force in the contentions raised by the appellant and upheld the Order -in -Original and rejected the refund claim.