9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has set aside the penalty imposed upon the respondents in terms of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, Revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard learned DR Shri R.S. Srova, appearing for the Revenue. 2. For better appreciation I reproduce the para 7 of the impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals). "7. As regards the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding. Therefore, penalty under Section 78 is not imposable in this case. It is also observed that the penalty under Section 78 cannot exceed the duty amount; however in this case, against the service tax involvement of Rs.22,148 /-, a penalty of Rs.35,000/- has been imposed, which is beyond the limits permissible under the law" 3. As against the above finding of the appellate authority that ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondents, Revenue has not referred to any evidences to show that service tax was not being paid by the assessee on account of any mala fide. It is well settled law that mere failure to apply for registration, by difference cannot be construed as a suppression with intent to evade payment of duty, especially in the field of service tax where the law is new and is changing everyday. 5. In vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
