9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance Act, 1994, the service recipient was not required to pay the Service Tax and the service recipient became liable to pay Service Tax after insertion of Section 66 w.e.f. 18.04.2006. Thus the learned Commissioner has not imposed any penalty under Section 76 or Sections 77 and the Department has not challenged the non-imposition of penalty under Sections 76 and 77. In these circumstances, there was a reasonable cause and therefore, the penalty is not imposable as per the provisions of Section 80. - ST/A/231/2010 - A-649/KOL/2012 - Dated:- 12-9-2012 - SHRI S.K. GAULE, AND DR. D.M. MISRA, JJ. APPEARANCE: DR. S. CHAKRABORTY, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT(S); SHRI S. MISRA, A.R.(ADDL. COMMR.) FOR THE REVENUE. Per Shri S.K.Gaul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how cause-cum-demand notice was issued against demanding Service Tax of Rs.19,48,43,234.35 and Education Cess of Rs.29,44,147.33 and there was a proposal for penalty under various provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. The learned Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the show cause notice along with the proposal for penalty. The subject matter of this Appeal is for the period from 19.04.2006 to 31.03.2007, whereby the Appellant had paid the total Service Tax of Rs.6,69,21,572.37 along with Education Cess of Rs.13,38,431.45 and interest of Rs.98,82,146/-. The Service Tax had already been paid, the Appellant are now in appeal against the demand of interest, imposition of penalties under various provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. The co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, the Appellant did not dispute the leviability of Service Tax for the material period. 4. Learned AR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner. 5. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. Undisputedly, the Service Tax for the period from 19.04.2006 to 31.03.2007, amounting to Rs.6,69,21,572.37 along with Education Cess of Rs.13,38,431.45 and interest of Rs.98,82,146/-, have already been paid by the Appellant on 01.10.2007 and 15.11.2007, long before issuance of the show cause-cum-demand notice. The Appellant are not contesting the payment of Service Tax. We find that Section 66A was inserted in the Finance Act with effect from 18.04.2006 by the Finance Bill, 2006. Thereunder, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice Tax. Therefore, the Appellant are required to pay interest on delay in payment of Service Tax in terms of Section 75, irrespective of the fact that the Applicant have paid the Service Tax before issue of show cause notice. 5.1. So far as the imposition of penalty is concerned, we find that no penalty is imposable under either Section 76 or 77 or the first proviso to sub-section(1) of Section 78 of the aforesaid provisions, in case there is a reasonable cause for the failure referred in the said provisions. We find that prior to 18.04.2006, i.e.before insertion of Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994, the service recipient was not required to pay the Service Tax and the service recipient became liable to pay Service Tax after insertion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
