9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartment under the category of “practicing Chartered Accountants Services” which shows that they were very well aware of the provisions of law - The appellants have not shown any evidence to prove that they had tried to contact the department to clear their doubt, if any, also it is a well settled principle that the ignorance of law is no excuse. Held that: the appellants have not shown any r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of the authorities below the service tax on the same stands confirmed. The appellants are not challenging the said confirmation but are praying for setting aside of penalty. 2. Further an amount of service tax of Rs. 7,695/- stands confirmed against them by rejecting the appellant s plea that the same was in respect of services provided to call centres and as such was not leviable, being ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by them. We note from the appeal memo that no such evidence stands discussed by the assessee. 4. The main thrust of the appellants arguments is that it is a fit case for invocation of Section 80 of the Finance Act inasmuch as there were bona fide doubts as regards the payment of service tax on the services provided by them. The said plea of the appellant stand discussed by Commissioner (Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of law is no excuse. It is only when the observation was raised by the audit the matter came to the notice. I find that the appellants have not shown any reasonable case to invoke Section 80 of the Act and therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 76 and Section 78 is justified. Separate penalties imposed under different provisions is just and right as held in case of Krishna Poduval - 2006 (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
