9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eved that they need not discharge the service tax liability, the various penalties imposed on the appellant are set aside. - The matters are sent for re-quantification of the demand falling within the limitation and after treating the value as cum duty price - All the appeals are disposed of in the above manner. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal has allowed the appeals on the point of limitation by observing that there was scope for entertaining bonafide belief on the part of the appellants. By drawing our attention to the period involved and the dates of Show Cause Notices in each and every appeal, he submits that the extended period stands invoked by the Revenue and only a part of the demand would be within the limitation period. The demand in the case of M/s N.K. Traders is totally barred by limitation. He also submits that Tribunal in the above referred judgement of M/s Mittul Engg. Services has also waived penalty by invoking the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act. The duty which falls within the limitation period has been extended. The benefit of cum-duty price ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds limitation, the Tribunal in the above decision has held as under :- We are of the considered view that appellant could have entertained a bonafide belief, that the contract entered by them is a rate contract and the payment being based on the work done by them during the existence of agreement, we find there is no malafide intention in the appellant in not discharging service tax liability from 1.7.2003. It can be seen from the above, that the claim of the Ld. Counsel that part of the demand in respect of some of the assesses is time-barred while in respect of few assesses, the entire demand is time-barred. In our considered view, the introduction of service tax law on maintenance or repairs was in initial stage during the relevant per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey are not liable to discharge the service tax liability as per the agreement entered by them due to which the appellant may not have discharged service tax liability under Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994. Invoking the provisions of Section 80, we hold these being reasonable cause for the appellant to be believed that they need not discharge the service tax liability, the various penalties imposed on the appellant are set aside. By following the above decision, we set aside the penalty imposed upon all the appellants. 10. In view of our foregoing the Appeal of M/s N.K. Traders is allowed by setting aside the impugned order and appeals of the other three appellants are allowed on limitation and penalty point. The matters are sent for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
