9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . "(i) I confirm the demand of Service Tax of Rs. 1,94,801/- and Education Cess of Rs. 3895/- (total Rs. 1,98,696/-) and order for adjustment of Rs. 2,02,370/- towards Service Tax and Rs. 4,047/- towards Education. Cess paid by the assesses vide TR6 challan dated 22-6-2006 against the duty payable. (ii) I order that the interest of Rs. 18,349/- paid vide TR6 Challan dated 22-6-2006 shall be adjusted against the interest payable on amount demanded at (i) above. (iii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,98,676/- under provisions of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. (iv) I impose a penalty of Rs. 100/- per day calculated in terms of Section 76 of Finance Act 1994." 2. Facts of the case are that M/s. Rajahari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide belief that they were not liable to pay service tax and had not attempted to evade tax due. They were not liable to penalty. They had gathered particulars of their clients and paid the tax due where they could not obtain the details. Payment of tax could not be considered as their admission of offence. They had paid interest along with payment of tax. The Assistant Commissioner appropriated the tax along with interest paid by the assessee and imposed penalty under Section 78 of the Act. 3. Initiating revision proceedings under Section 84 of the Act, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee and the assessee was heard through their tax consultant on 8-1-2008. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner imposed a penalty under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... All their customers fell under any one of these categories. Therefore there was no mala fide intention on the part of the appellants to evade payment of service tax. 6.1 I find that the assessee has not challenged the order of the Assistant Commissioner which found the assessee liable to pay service tax and also imposed penalty equal to the tax demanded on the assessee under Section 78 of the Act. Though, I find considerable merit in the submissions of the assessee that it had no mala fide intention and the non-payment of tax had been occasioned due to its bona fide belief that the liability was on its customers, the appellants have not challenged the order the original authority. The assessee itself claims to be a GTA. In the circums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
