9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Services" - Postponement of liability - Incidence of levy under aforesaid category fastened liability on the appellant from 19-4-2006 by Notification No. 10/2006-ST dated 19-4-2006 - The liability that has been incurred by the appellant is for the period soon after two months of the Implementation of the law - it is a case where there is no mala fides of the appellant apparent from the face of adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t required to be adjudicated because when above service was made taxable from 19-4-2006 inserting sub-clause (i)(b) to Rule 2(d) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, the appellant did not fail to discharge its tax liability as that was due. On 8-9-2007 the appellant paid the tax due through TR-6 challan which is evident from page 22 of the appeal folder containing show cause notice. Such a fact also finds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two months of the Implementation of the law. Secondly, it is a case where there is no mala fides of the appellant apparent from the face of adjudication order. Perusal of the first appellate order does not bring out contumacious conduct of the appellant. Rather the appellant appears to have cooperated with revenue to discharge the tax liability as has been recorded in para 5.2 of the impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x at least the Appellant should suffer penalty under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. Such a submission does not appear for the reason that section 76 is subject to the provisions contained in section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 and penalty cannot be imposed ipso facto. Sections 76 and 78 being subject to benediction of section 80 of Finance Act, 1994, in absence of mala fide of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
