9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .P.No.1 of 2007 and the Hon'ble High Court by its separate orders both dt. 29.10.2012 directed the appellant to comply with the stay orders dt. 23.6.2006 and 9.1.2007 in the respective appeals within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. On compliance of the stay orders, the Tribunal was directed to take up the appeals and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law. The learned advocate submits that they have complied with stay orders dt. 23.6.06 and 9.1.2007 of the Tribunal and submitted compliance report dated 19.12.12, which is kept on record. In view of that, both the appeals are taken up for hearing for disposal. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the busi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 76 imposed by the learned Commissioner may be set aside. He has not contested the demand of tax seriously on merit. 4. Ld.AR for Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner. It is submitted that applicant despite having knowledge of levy of tax, they have not paid the same and therefore Commissioner rightly imposed penalty under Section 76 which is liable to be upheld. 5. After hearing both sides, and on perusal of the records, we find that the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant mainly restricted his submission on imposition of penalty under Section 76 in Appeal No.ST/180/06. He drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant portion of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in other appeal as under:- "In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time, it is reasonable to expect that the appellants, who made their foray with these services only in October 2001, would, at least in the initial years, concentrate their efforts into making their entrepreneurship a success. This being so, any such omission to suo moto come forward and discharge their service tax liability could very well have been due to ignorance of the liability or bonafide confusion concerting the taxing provisions or a combination of both but certainly not with intent, by suppression or concealment. This benefit of doubt must be extended to the appellant. It is also not the case that the appellants collected tax from their customers and retained the same by not passing it on to the exchequer. I am also convinced tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
