9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt and, hence, this is a fit case for invoking the provisions of Section 80. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order setting aside the penalty on Respondent under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Decided against Revenue. - ST/198/2007 and Cross Objection No. CO/127/2007 - Final Order No. ST/502/2011-Cus.(DB) - Dated:- 16-9-2011 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) Shri Sunil Kumar, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri Saurabh Yadav, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER The respondent are Government of Madhya Pradesh Undertaking. They provide loans to their customers and collect 1.25% of the sanctioned loan amount as application fee and upfront fee from their custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- along with interest, appropriation of the amount already paid by them and also for imposition of penalty on them under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 30th November 2006 by which the service tax demand, as made in the show cause notice was confirmed along with interest, an amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- already paid by them was appropriated and beside this, penalty was imposed on them under Sections 76, 77 and 78. The penalty imposed under Section 78 was Rs. 17,29,381/-. On appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) against the Additional Commissioner s order, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 9-2-2007, while upholding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is not correct. 2.2 Shri Saurabh Yadav, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the respondent defended the impugned order and pleaded that the period of dispute is from 10-9-2004 to 30-9-2005, that this was the period when the service tax on the Respondent s activity had been newly introduced, that the respondent being a Government of Madhya Pradesh Undertaking, there could not be any intention on their part to evade the tax, that as soon as the department pointed out to the Respondent that they are liable to pay service tax on the amount of application fee and upfront fee collected by them, they immediately discharged their entire tax liability, that the Commissioner (Appeals) by treating the disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y failure referred to in the said provisions if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the such failure. 6. In this case, the respondent is a Government of Madhya Pradesh Undertaking and it is difficult to believe that nonpayment of service tax was on account of their intention to evade the service tax. Moreover, the Respondent s activity became taxable in the budget of 2004-2005 and it is very much possible that they were not aware that their activity would attract the service tax. In view of this, we are satisfied that the non-payment of service tax by the respondent was not due to any mala fide intention on their part and, hence, this is a fit case for invoking the provisions of Section 80. Therefore, we do not find a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
