Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar. (K. K. 42, Civil, Township, Rourkela769004. ....Respondent (s) Appearance: Shri Rajeev Agarwal, C. A. for the Appellant (s) Shri D. Halder, A. R. for the Respondent(s) HON'BLE SHRI P.K.CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Final Order No...75401/2020 Date of Hearing: 04.09.2020 Date of Decision:04.09.2020 PER SHRI P.K.CHOUDHARY: The instant appeal has been filed by the assessee, M/s. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. against the OrderinAppeal dated 25.6.2019 passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Bhubaneswar. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant is a PSU engaged in the business of coal mining. Apart from payment of central excise duty on coal, they are also liable to pay service tax under the category of Renting of Immovable Property Service. There was a nonpayment of service tax on the above category of service, which was deposited by the appellant under the amnesty scheme, VCES 2013. Since the VCES scheme covered the period upto December 2012, the payment thereof was accepted by the Department for which discharge certificate has also been issued providing complete immunity from payment of interest and penalty. For the subsequent period, January 2013 to January 2014, which is the period in dispute herein, service tax was also paid and the payment details informed to the Department vide letter dated 14.8.2015 and 01.9.2015. Show Cause Notice dated 04.08.2016 2 Service Tax Appeal No. 77331 of 2019 was issued without taking into cognizance of the fact that due service tax stood already deposited. In adjudication, while noting the fact that tax was already paid, the Learned Assistant Commissioner imposed equivalent penalty of Rs.7,35,334/ under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 which is under challenge in this appeal. The appellant also deposited applicable interest during the appeal stage before the Commissioner. However, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order upheld the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. 3. Sri Rajeev Agarwal, Chartered Accountant appeared for the appellant and Sri D. Halder, Authorised Representative appeared for the Revenue. 4. The Learned Chartered Accountant submitted that the penalty under section 78 of the Act can be imposed only in cases where fraud or suppression is involved with intent to evade payment of tax. He submitted that in their case, the appellant already paid the demanded tax amount before the issuance of Show Cause Notice and also paid interest of Rs.4,87,193/ on 22.06.2019. He submitted that there was no deliberate action on the part of the appellant to evade payment of tax and therefore, penalty could not be imposed on them. He relied on several case laws incl., the decision in the case of: (i) BioMed. Health Care Products (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, DelhiIV 2015 (37) S.T.R. 381 (TriDel.), (ii) Commissioner of Central Excise, v. Indian Aluminium (2010) 259 ELT 12 (SC), (iii) EWAC Alloys Limited v. Union of India 1995 (80) E.L.T. 759 (Bom.). He also submitted that PSUs do not have any intention to evade the payment of tax as held in Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore vs. Nepa Ltd 2013 (298) ELT 225 (TriDel) and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, ChennaiI v. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited [2007 (211) ELT 193 (SC)]. He accordingly prayed that penalty be dropped. 5. The Learned Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings given by the Commissioner (Appeals) and prayed that the appeal be dismissed being devoid of any merit. 6. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 3 Service Tax Appeal No. 77331 of 2019 7. The only issue that arises for consideration is whether penalty is imposable under Section 78 in the instant case. 8. I find that the service ta