9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee pleaded for immunity from penalty on ground that it had discharged entire service tax liability and interest thereon before the expiry of the Extraordinary Taxpayer Friendly Scheme, dated 20.9.2004 issued by DOF No. 137/139/2004-CX.4. In the light of the decision of Union of India v. Amit Kumar Maheshwari 2009 -TMI - 32163 - HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN, held that- it is a fit case to invoke section 80 and set aside the penalties. The appeal is allowed. - ST/02/2008 - 896 OF 2009 - Dated:- 2-7-2009 - M.V. RAVINDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER K. Hariharan for the Appellant. Smt. Sudha Koka for the Respondent. ORDER 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 60/2007, dated 30-9-2007. 2. The relevant facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch were rendered by the Tribunal extending the benefit of Extraordinary Taxpayer Friendly Scheme to those persons who have registered but failed to discharge, service tax liability, had been granted immunity from the penal provisions, were approved. He would submit that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court. 4. The learned SDR, on the other hand, would submit that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan will be applicable only to those who have registered and who are getting registered under the Amnesty Scheme. It is her submission that in this case, the appellants have not claimed the benefit under Amnesty Scheme before the lower authorities. It is her submission that the benefit of the schem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant along with interest prior to the issuance of show-cause notice. The learned Chartered Accountant submits that in this case also, there was a misunderstanding of the provisions by the appellant and, hence, they had not discharged the service tax liability, but they have done so as soon as it was brought to their notice and it was also his submission that the liability of service tax was discharged quarterly. I find that the Adjudicating Authority has imposed a penalty of Rs. 8,400 for default of payment of Service Tax for the period November, 2004 to March, 2005. The provisions of section 80 can be invoked in this case for setting aside this penalty, as the annexure to the OIO indicates that the appellant has been paying the service ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
