9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hem is available as credit. Held that - In the case in hand whatever the service tax is paid by the appellant is available as credit. Therefore, in that scenario Section 80 of the Finance Act 1994 is applicable to the facts of the case. Therefore, by giving the benefit Section 80 of the Finance Act 1994 tribunal hold that penalty is not imposable on the appellant. - Penalty waived - Decided in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal and the Tribunal remitted the matter back for giving the benefit of Notification No.32/2004-ST i.e. 75% abatement in case if the Goods Transport Agency has not availed cenvat credit on input or capital goods transport service. In remand proceedings the benefit of Notification was given and the demand was reduced to that extent but the penalty under Section 78 was confirmed against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 was not given to them, the lower authorities have rightly imposed penalty on the appellants. In support of his contention, he relies on the following decisions, 1. Bajaj Travels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax 2012 (25) STR 417 (Del) 2. Aircel Digilink India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur 2004 (173) ELT 31 (Tri.Del), 3. Malabar Regional co-operative Pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s subject to reasonable cause for not paying service tax, the penalties are not imposable. In the cases relied upon by the ld. AR Malabar Regional Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. Vs. CCE, Cochin (supra) and Interscape Vs. CCE, Mumbai (supra) are with regard to Central Excise Act. Therefore, these cannot be reliable in this matter. In the case of Aircell Digilink India Ltd (supra), the assessee di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
