2014 (11) TMI 714

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... inst Revenue.
S S Kang and P K Jain, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr V K Agarwal, Additional Commissioner (AR)) For the Respondent : : Ms Sujata S Rangvekar, CA JUDGEMENT Per: S S Kang: 1. Heard both sides. 2. Revenue filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai. The adjudicating authority vide impugned order confirmed a demand of ₹ 1,54,20,008/- alongwith interest and appropriated the amount of service tax and interest already paid by the respondent. The adjudicating authority has not imposed any penalty under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Revenue filed appeal against the adjudication order by challenging the portion whereby the adjudicating authority had not impos .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act. It therefore, implied that the adjudicating authority was in agreement with the proposition that service tax was not paid by the assessee with intent to evade payment. (vi) The observation of the adjudicating authority that the intent to evade the tax has to be proved and mere allegation is not sufficient is contrary to the facts. This is apparent from the perusal of contents of the letter dated 18.12.96 (para 4 of the SCN refers) wherein it is mentioned that they had taken up the issue of payment of service tax on the total amount billed with M/s. SCI and M/s. Essar. Thus, it clearly shows that the knowledge of the assessee about the appropriate liability and the mens-rea stands established on the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... riod 16.6.2005 to 31.3.2006 which is the initial period. The respondents paid the service tax along with interest when the Revenue pointed out the same even before issue of the Show cause Notice. The respondents were engaged in providing manning of ship vessles belongs to M/s Shipping Corporation of India, M/s Essar Shipping Ltd and M/s Antariksha Chemicals Pvt Ltd. The respondents were under the bona fide belief that the reimbursement by the service recipient in respect of salaries and wages etc is not to be considered as part of taxable service for payment of service tax. When the Revenue pointed out the same the respondents pursued the matter with the service recipient and paid the service tax with interest. The Respondents relied upon t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X