9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by appellant - As decided in case of [DCM Textiles Versus Commissioner of Central Excise [2012] 35 STT 88 (NEWDELHI-CESTAT)] For imposition of Penalty the intention to evade the duty must be proved. Merely not obtaining service tax registration or non-payment of tax, cannot be a ground of evasion of duty - penalty set aside. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition of penalty of identical amount. He submits that in terms of Hon'ble High Court decision in the case of Indian National Ship owners Association v. Union of India [2009] 18 STT 212 (Bom)], the services received from foreign persons are not taxable up to 18.4.06, when the provisions of Section 66 A were enacted. As such, he submits that even confirmation of demand up to 18.4.06 is not in accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... New Delhi-Cestat) wherein it was observed that mere non-obtaining of Service Tax registration or non-payment of tax cannot be concluded that same was with intention to evade the tax. 3. Learned AR Shri Bharat Bhushan appears for the revenue. 4. I fully agree with the learned advocate. In terms of the law declared by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Associat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
