9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at they were not liable to service tax has to be deserves to be accepted especially in the light of the eligibility of cenvat credit of entire service tax paid by them - Hence,no penalty needs to be sustained - The appeal of the department seeking enhancement of penalty is rejected. - ST/698/2010 & ST/709/2010 - - - Dated:- 1-3-2011 - Mr. M. VEERAIYAN, JJ. Shri M.N. Bharathi, Adv, for the appellants Shri C. Rangaraju, SDR, for the respondents Per: M. Veeraiyan, Appeal No. ST/698/2010 is by M/s. Paradigm International against the order of the Commissioner (A) No. 171/ 2010 dated 16.09.2010, challenging the penalty under Section 78, which was limited to 25% of the entire service tax amount involved. Appeal No. ST/709 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid within the period of 30 days as mentioned in the proviso. They filed an appeal before the Commissioner (A) challenging imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78. The Commissioner (A) set aside the penalties under Section 76 and 77 and extended concessional penalty of 25% of the service tax involved if the said amount was paid within the period of 30 days from the date of his order. 4. The Ld. Advocate of the appellant-assessee reiterating the grounds of the appeal, submits that the EXIM Policy during the relevant period clearly envisaged that the intention of the Government was only to export the goods and not the taxes and duties thereon and in this regard he relies on para 2.48.3 in Annual Supplement for the year 2006 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the department. He also relies on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the Case of UOI Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors 2008 (231) ELT 3 (S.C.). 6. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. The liability to tax was not in dispute either before the original authority or before the Commissioner (A). The dispute relates to only on the liability to penalties. The appellant-assessee claims that no penalty at all should be imposed on them, whereas, the department is of the view that a penalty equal to Rs.3,14,842/- should be imposed under Section 78 by the original authority and penalty of Rs.5,000/- imposed under Section 77 by the original authority should also be restored. 7. Undispu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
