9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed the facts with intent to evade duty. Commissioner (Appeals)deleted the penalty u/s 78 as the intent to evade duty could not be proved. Tribunal held that when there was no intent to evade duty then demand could not be raised after limitation period. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the part of the appellant to evade payment of service tax. If that be so, the longer period of limitation cannot be invoked, though he fairly agrees that such plea on limitation was never raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) in as much as the appellant himself was contesting the matter before the authorities. He however submits that the plea of limitation being a legal plea, can always be rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants with intent to evade tax and imposed penalty under Section 78. I, therefore, find that there is no evidence to show that there was any fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts, etc., on the part of the appellants with intent to evade payment of duty. In view of the same, the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is not sustainable and hereby set aside. 4. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arly barred by limitation. We accordingly hold the demand as not payable by the appellant. 5. At this stage learned advocate submits that the appellant has paid the entire amount of tax, which he undertakes not to claim back. However he submits that in view of the order now passed by the Tribunal, he would not be liable to pay interest etc. on the same. 6. In view of the above undertaking given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
