9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... category of construction of residential complexes. On the basis of intelligence that the respondent was providing taxable services and not discharging Service tax liability thereon, an inquiry was initiated and the records maintained by the party were called for. On going through the records received, it was noticed that the respondent assessee has provided taxable services for a value of Rs. 9,80,250/- during the year 2007-08 and similarly for the period 2008-09 (upto February-09) the assessee received a consideration of Rs. 17,61,000/- for taxable services of construction of residential complexes. After taking into account, the small scale exemption available to the assessee, the duty liability was determined for an amount of Rs. 1,15,206 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 78 by Rs. 1,15,123/- which has also been paid by the assessee and he also set aside the penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the ground that the penalties both under Sections 76 and 78 are not warranted and cannot be imposed after 10-5-2008. 4. The department is in appeal against the said reduction of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals). The ground urged in the appeal memorandum is that the Commissioner's (Appeals) order is bad in law for the reason that he had set aside the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act. The amendment to the Finance Act, 1994 with regard to imposition of penalty was made on 10-5-2008 as per which penalty cannot be imposed both under Sections 76 and 78. Therefore, for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity on account of ignorance. As soon as the proceedings were initiated and he was asked to produce records, he submitted all records and gave details of payment which he received for the services he provided. He also discharged Service tax liability as soon as the same was quantified and intimated to him. Therefore, it was a fit case for waiver of penalty under Section 80 of the said Finance Act which the adjudicating authority failed to do by taking into consideration the facts of the case which the appellate authority has done. He reduced the amount of penalty to the extent to Service tax paid by the respondent assessee. At least the appellate authority has exercised the discretion to some extent even though he could have waived the entir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
