9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee's contention in so far as penalty is confirmed that the failure to remit service tax subsequent to 18.4.2006 is not wilful but on account of a mis-conception of the assessees liability to remit such service tax is not acceptable as the legislative provision clearly and ambiguously enjoins an obligation on the recipient of the service to remit service tax. There cannot be a plea based on igno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,821/- intimated under Show Cause Notices dated 9.7.2007 and 8.1.2007 (for the period 1.7.2004 to 30.9.2006 and 1.10.2006 to 31.3.2007, respectively); assessed interest under Section 75 of the Act; imposed penalties under Section 76 and under Section 78 of the Finance Act 1994; and imposed a penalty equivalent to the service tax liability assessed. 3. Prior to 18.4.2006, prior to the enactment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad himself provided the service in India. As a consequence of the service recipient is required to remit service tax. The admitted factual scenario is however that the assessee failed to remit service tax prior to 18.4.2006 and subsequent to 18.4.2006. The appellant/assessee remitted service tax, in conformity with the obligation under Section 66A for the period subsequent to 18.4.2006, only after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice tax for the period prior to 18.4.2006. Ld. DR however concedes the position that in view of the the amendment to Section 66A of the Act, Revenues appeal is mis-conceived. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee would however plead that in so far as penalty is confirmed in appeal, the same be excised since the failure to remit service tax subsequent to 18.4.2006 is not wilful but on account of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
