2014 (1) TMI 1512

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pellant. Once such finding is given, there would be no scope for the conclusion that the appellant did not discharge the service tax liability due to bonafide reasons. Confirmation of service tax demand by invoking proviso to Section 73 (1) and waiver of penalty by invoking Section 80 do not go hand in hand - Decided against assessee.
Shri G. Raghuram and Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant : S/Shri S.C. Kamra and G.K. Mahajan, Advocates For the Respondent : Shri Davinder Singh, Authorized Representative (Jt. CDR) JUDGEMENT Per. Rakesh Kumar :- The appellant in the year 2001 entered into a licence agreement with M/s Gerard Kessels Sociedad Anonima, Spain for use of the technology developed by them for manufacture of an organic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Additional Commissioners order dropping the penalty proceedings was reviewed by the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise, under the provisions of Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 and vide Order-in-Revision No. 05/Commr/MRT-I/2011 dated 17/02/2011 he modified the Additional Commissioner's order by imposing penalties on them under Section 76, 77 and 78. While penalty of Rs. 12,87,153/- was imposed under Section 76, penalty of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed under Section 77 and Rs. 14,98,776/- was imposed under Section 78. Against this order of the Commissioner, this appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri S.C. Kamra, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the service tax is being charged from .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by invoking extended limitation period under proviso to Section 73 (1) and when that portion of the order-in-original has not been challenged by the appellant, and when the language of the proviso to Section 73 (1) and of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is identical, once the service tax demand was confirmed by invoking proviso to Section 73 (1), penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 cannot be waived by invoking Section 80, as once finding is given that the non-payment of the service tax was deliberate and due to contravention of the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 and the rules made thereunder with intent to evade the tax, there cannot be any bonafide reason for failure to discharge the service tax liability so as to invoke Section 80. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X