9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty u/s 76 and 78. Held that- since the assesese had already given reasonable cause for its failure in discharging the service tax liability, the review adjudication order of the commissioner was unsustainable and liable to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aryana in the case of CCE v. Darmania Telecom [2009] 20 STT 98. It is the submission that the provisions of section 80 of the Act can be invoked in the absence of any fraud, collusion, misrepresentation, etc. In any case it is the submission that they are not challenging the service tax liability and interest which they have already paid. 4. Heard the learned Jt. CDR who defends the impugned order. She submits that once the adjudicating authority had confirmed the demands, then consequential penalty under sections 76 and 78 of the Act should be imposed and provisions of section 80 of the Act cannot be invoked, for non-imposition of penalties under sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 5. On a careful consideration of the submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cause so as to invoke section 80 of the Act for waiver of penalty." From the above findings, I find that the adjudicating authority has clearly given reasons for non-imposition of penalties. It is seen from the records that taxable service, namely Multi System Operator (MSO) service, was brought under purview of Service Tax levy, with effect from 10-9-2004. The period involved in this case is from October 2004 to January 2005. It is also to be noted that there was dispute with the Cable Operators regarding payment of service tax liability under this category. In any case, the reason given by the Commissioner for invoking the extended proviso to section 73 of the Act will come into play for imposition of penalty under sections 76 and 78 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
