9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y service tax arose in January, 2009, the question of invoking provisions of Section 76, especially when penalty was considered under Section 78 would not arise at all. Accordingly, the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 76 is not sustainable in law. Appellant discharged the service tax liability along with interest thereon as soon as the short payment was pointed out to them and they also intimated to the same to the department vide letter dated 22-6-2011 under the provisions of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, much before the show cause notice. It is also a fact that these transactions were reflected in the balance sheets of the appellant for the relevant years. These evidences available on records indicate that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2009 and 2010-2011. However, they did not pay service tax liability on reverse charge basis. During the scrutiny of the records of the appellant company by the AG s audit, from 23-3-2011 to 25-3-2011, the AG s audit party noticed that the appellant had not discharged the service tax liability on the services received from abroad for which they paid consideration and pointed out the same to the appellant. Immediately, thereafter the appellant discharged the service tax liability on 5-5-2011, 17-6-2011 29-7-2011 along with interest thereon. They filed an intimation as required under Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, vide letter 22-6-2011, and requested that inasmuch as they have paid the service tax along with interest, no notice may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of the said transactions were reflected in the balance sheets of the company for the respective years. Therefore, they have not suppressed any information with an intent to evade payment of service tax. The ld. Counsel relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Essar Steel Ltd., 2009 (13) S.T.R. 579 (Tri.-Ahmd.) where in a more or less identical situation, penalty imposed under Section 78 was set aside, especially when the appellant had discharged the service tax liability along with interest thereon much before the issuance of the show cause notice. He also relied on a number of decisions in this regard. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the impugned penalty. He also submitted that the situation of the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Section 76, especially when penalty was considered under Section 78 would not arise at all. Accordingly, the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 76 is not sustainable in law. 6.3 As regards the penalty imposed under Sections 77 78, in the present case, it is evident from the records that the appellant discharged the service tax liability along with interest thereon as soon as the short payment was pointed out to them and they also intimated to the same to the department vide letter dated 22-6-2011 under the provisions of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, much before the show cause notice. It is also a fact that these transactions were reflected in the balance sheets of the appellant for the relevant years. These e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
