9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal is filed by the appellant against the order of confirmation of penalty of Rs. 2,48,403/- under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant had provided their premises on rent to M/s. Oriental Bank of Commerce. A show-cause notice was issued, wherein it was charged that she had delayed payment of Service tax for the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Service Tax from the tenant, immediately deposited the same in the treasury. As being a new levy of Service Tax and levy of Service Tax is in dispute also, he prayed that the appellant in her bona fide belief could not pay the Service Tax on time and the penalty may not be imposed. Further, the learned Advocate placed reliance on decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi reported in 2009 (14) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n support of the above contentions, he placed reliance on the following decisions : - (i) UOI v. Home Solution Retail India Ltd. - 2009 (15) S.T.R. J23 (S.C.) (ii) UOI v. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. - 2004 (164) E.L.T. 375 (S.C.) (in) CCE v. Shri Ram Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. - 2009 (242) E.L.T. 202 (Bom.) (iv) CCE, Chandigarh v. Him Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. - 2009-TIOL-574-HC-HP-IT (v) UOI v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g with penalty under Sections 76 and 77 of Finance Act, 1994 in terms of Section 80 upheld. 7. Considering the facts that it is new levy of Service Tax and the facts are similar to the case of M/s. A.B. International and by giving the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act to the appellant, I drop the penalty demand and the impugned order is set aside to that extent only. (Pronounced in Court) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
