2012 (9) TMI 338

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iling of ST-3 return but contested only against levy of penalty u/s 76 need to be set aside as the applicant could not pay the Service Tax due to reasonable belief that since their value of taxable service is Rs.8 lakhs therefore there was a reasonable cause for failure to pay Service Tax which they have already paid.
S.K. GAULE, J. Shri Dipankar Das, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri S.Mi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... irmed the demand. Aggrieved by the same they challenged the order before ld.Commissioner(Appeals), who has in turn upheld the lower adjudicating authority s order. Hence the appeal. 3. The contention of the appellant is that they are not pressing for the demand of Service Tax nor pressing for the penalty imposed under section 70 for delay in submitting the ST-3 return. The contention is that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r Section 76 in view of the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 provides that :- SECTION 80. Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of section 76, [section 77 or section 78], no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure referred to in the said provisions if the assessee pro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X