9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act by the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified - respondents not in appeal and they have also not filed cross objection - In the absence of appeal by the respondent, there is, of course, no scope for setting aside penalty of Rs.50,000/- - no justification for enhancement of the penalty from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,49,758/- as sought for by the department - appeal by the department, rejected - ST/66 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1,49,758/- was imposed by the original authority under Section 76 and Rs.5000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The respondent did not dispute the service tax liability before the original authority. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) also, they did not contest the service tax liability but made a submission that whatever service tax paid by them is liable to be refunded in terms of Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R 107 (Guj.)] and CCE Customs Vs Port Officer [2010 (19) STR 641]. 5. Ld. advocate stresses the point that the respondent is an exporter and adds that due to ignorance and in view of confusion in the law about the liability on the service recipient, they have not paid the service tax. If they had paid service tax, as an exporter, they could have claimed the refund within one year. It was a f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances of the present case, the submission of ld. advocate that it was a fit case for invoking the provisions of Section 80 deserves to be taken note of. It is not in dispute that if the respondent had paid the service tax during the disputed period, they would have been eligible for the refund. This is a case of revenue-neutrality, involving no intention to evade tax. Therefore, the exerc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
