9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f tax with interest payable thereon. No penalty should be imposed on such defaulter unless the default is on account of deliberate fraud, collusion, suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of duty of Service Tax. Held that- the invocation of provisions of section 76, 77 were not justified, thus set-aside the said penalty. The Appeal is allowed. - ST/134-135 OF 2009 - A/1459-1460 AND S/970-971/WZB/AHD./2009 - Dated:- 10-7-2009 - MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Jigar Shah for the Appellant. S.K. Mall for the Respondent. ORDER 1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 67,400 imposed in one case and Rs. 1,01,100 in another case, under section 76 of Finance Act, 1994, and penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act was set aside. He also drawn my attention to observations made by the Commissioner in not imposing penalty under section 78 which has not been taken into account by him for imposing penalty under section 76 and section 77. 3. Countering the above arguments, learned SDR submits that the appellant got themselves registered on 30-1-2005 for the purpose of payment of service tax on GTA services so received by them. This fact itself shows that the appellants were aware of their liability to pay the service tax. He submits that they have not discharged their duty liability, which reflects upon their mala fide intention requiring invocation of penalty under sections 76 and 77. As such, submits the learned SDR that section 80 stand rightly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s." 5. However, while imposing penalty under sections 76 and 77, the Commissioner has held that the benefit of section 80 of the Act, as contended by the noticee, cannot be extended to them. For better appreciation of the reasoning adopted by the adjudicating authority, para 13.3 of the order is reproduced below : "13.3 As concluded hereinabove, the lapses in obtaining Service Tax registration, in payment of service tax and in furnishing of the ST-3s prescribed under the Law were substantial and not procedural in nature. Further, the noticee has failed to establish that there was any reasonable or justifiable cause for the said failures. On the contrary, the facts and circumstances of the case indicate that the noticee was well aware of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
