9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... & ESI was actually not received by the appellant but deposited with the concerned department. Thus, it can not be said that appellant made a mistake in not including the same for the purpose of payment of service tax. Thus it is a fit case for waiver of penalty under Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994. - ST/329 and 419/2009 - A/2426-2427/2009-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 22-12-2009 - Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Mem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e tax in respect of the amount recovered by the service receiver as TDS and amount paid towards PF ESI. As soon as it was pointed out to them, they paid the tax with interest and he seeks a lenient view as regards penalty and seeks waiver of Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Jaipur v. Louis Berger International Inc. as reported in 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e noted that the amount relating to TDS, PF ESI was actually not received by the appellant but deposited with the concerned department. Therefore, we cannot find fault that appellant made a mistake in not including the same for the purpose of payment of service tax. Further, this issue was considered by the Tribunal in Louis Berger International Inc. case and the observations of the Tribunal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 94 to 25%. In view of the decision in respect of appeals filed by the party that no penalty is imposable and a lenient view by invoking Section 80 is required to be taken, the department's appeal has to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. 7. Both the appeals are disposed of in above manner. 8. After complete dictation of the order, learned SDR submits that the statements submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
