9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the appellate authority, the longer period cannot be said to be available to the Revenue for raising the demand. - major part of the demand would be barred by limitation - matter remanded back for re-quantification - Decided in favor of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the shoulder of the one alleging it. Thus for deliberate default for non-payment of service tax no specific averments finds a mention in impugned order which is a mandatory requirement for imposition of penalties. Thus I find in the instant case there is only inadvertent non-payment of service tax and there was nothing on record displaying a willful default on part of the appellant. No justification for imposition of penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 has been given in the impugned order. In this regard I find that the Appellant not only shown bonafide belief but also explained the cause which constitute "reasonable cause" for not discharging service tax. In support of my findings I refer to the Hon'ble Karnataka High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the part of the appellant. If that be so, I really fail to understand that how the longer period of limitation can be invoked against the assessee, in the absence of any mala fide. Tribunal in the case of Royal Travels Vs. CCE Vadodara - 2011 (21) STR 31 (Tri.-Ahmd.) has held that once penalty stands set aside by the appellate authority, the longer period cannot be said to be available to the Revenue for raising the demand. 5. By applying the ratio of the above decision, I hold that the major part of the demand would be barred by limitation. However, ld. Advocate agrees that a part of the demand would fall within the limitation for which the matter is being remanded to the original adjudicating authority for re-quantification of the dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
