9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Department - It also indicates his bona fideness in discharging service tax liability - Service tax liability was not discharged on being detected by the Department, but paid voluntarily pursuant to the disclosure already made in the ST-3 Returns - case covered under section 80 of the Finance Act and the penalty on the appellant is not warranted - Appeal is allowed - ST/ 276 of 2010 - A-125(K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d mentioned that the amount is payable but not paid. The entire amount of service tax liability was paid by him on September, 2008 along with interest. Thereafter, the show-cause notice was issued to him proposing penalty. The adjudicating authority has confirmed penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act and imposed penalty of Rs. 99,654/- on the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut by the Department. 5. I have perused the case records and considered the submissions of the ld. A.R. for the Department. I find that the appellant had reflected the service tax liability on account of service provided by him during the period April, 2007 to September, 2007 in the ST-3 Returns filed with the Department. The reason for delay in making payment has been sufficiently explained b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case as sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant for invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 which the lower authorities had failed to do. In the circumstances, in view of the above findings, I find that this case covered under section 80 of the Finance Act and the penalty on the appellant is not warranted. Consequently, I set aside the orders of the lower authorities and direct waive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
