9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s - corporate recipient of GTA service became a person liable to pay service tax w.e.f. 01/01/2005 by virtue of the aforesaid rule made by the Central Government and notified to the public under Section 68 –- only reason stated was that the non-payment of service tax was not willful cannot be accepted- appeal allowed in the favour of the revenue. - Appeal No.ST/1904/2010 - - - Dated:- 14-11-2012 - Mr. P.G. Chacko, J. For the Appellant: Mr. N. Jagdish, Superintendent(AR) For the Respondent: Mr. K. Srikant, Authorised representative JUDGEMENT This appeal filed by the Department is directed against non-imposition of penalty on the respondent under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The respondent is engaged in the manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o service tax under Section 78 with an option for payment of 25% thereof within 30 days, imposing separate penalty of Rs.1000/- under Section 77 of the Act. With reference to Section 76 of the Act, the adjudicating authority expressed the view that a penalty under this provision could be waived as the assessee had paid service tax with interest and a penalty under Section 78 stood imposed on them. This part of the Order-in-Original was reviewed in the Department and an appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority rejected their appeal after observing that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee s failure to pay service tax in due time. In other words, the appellate authority granted the benefit of Section 80 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... argued, the Departments prayer for penalty under Section 76 should not be acceded to. The authorized representative further claims that the penalty under Section 78 of the Act imposed by the original authority was duly paid by them. However, no proof of this payment has been brought on record. 4. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, I am not impressed with the plea of ignorance of law particularly when such plea comes from a corporate entity which is engaged in the manufacture of excisable products since August 1995. A corporate recipient of GTA service became a person liable to pay service tax w.e.f. 01/01/2005 by virtue of the aforesaid rule made by the Central Government and notified to the public under Section 68 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 11. As regards the second ground of challenge is concerned, Section 80 of the said Act provides that, Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of Section 76, 77 or 78, no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure referred to in the said provisions, if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. In other words, the assessee has to establish reasonable cause for the failure which could otherwise attract penalty under the said provisions of law. The letter dated 24th August, 2006 merely informs the Department that the appellants were not aware of the statutory provisions. Ignorance of law can never be an excuse. Besides, the provisions of law are in force since 1994. No doubt ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
