9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount of Rs.6,85,200/- on 19.09.05 towards service tax and interest payable by them for the period from 01.07.03 to 27.08.05. A show cause notice was issued on 25.09.08 proposing to appropriate the amount already deposited by them towards service tax payable and interest and proposing to impose penalty under Section 76, 77 & 78 of Finance Act, 1994 (the Act). The original adjudicating authority appropriated the amount already paid towards service tax and interest and imposed penalty under Section 76 @ Rs.100 per day subject to the maximum service tax amount payable, penalty equal to the service tax amount demanded under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 and penalty of Rs.1000/- under Section 77 of the Act. On an appeal filed by the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had deposited the service tax amount immediately after being informed and the Tribunal has taken a consistent stand in similar cases that there was a confusion prevailing during the period prior to clarification issued by the Board in 2006 and therefore penalty is not warranted. Respondent sought reduced penalty upheld by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) without properly considering the submissions made by them also may be deleted in view of the decisions cited by them. Today when the matter came up, a written submission has been received wherein the respondent reiterated the points made in the cross objection. The respondent has submitted that this is a fit case for waiver of penalties by invoking provisions of Section 80 of the Act by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s it necessary to clarify the same, it would not be appropriate to charge assessees with suppression of facts/mis-declaration with intent to evade payment of service tax. Further, in terms of provisions of Section 73 also, once service tax and interest are paid, the matter has to be treated as concluded and no show cause notice need to be issued. In view of the Board s circular as well as the provisions of Section 73 of the Act, this was a case where no action was warranted. I find that the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Modern Machinery reported in 2008 (17) STT 35, Financers Vs. CCE Jaipur reported in 2008 (15) STT 187 and Vinayak Auto Lines reported in 2010 (28) STT 96 (Ahmd. CESTAT) are applicable to the facts of this case. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
