2015 (1) TMI 896

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , though the question of limitation was raised, no serious challenge against the payment of service tax is forthcoming. On facts, the Tribunal has concluded that there is no explanation as to the so called bona fide mistake. The Tribunal on facts has also concluded that it is not a case of bona fide mistake and has upheld the case of the Department. - Merely because the service tax in question is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r: M Shantanagoudar: A demand of ₹ 1 ,11,809 /- was made by the Department by issuing a show-cause notice dated 14.03.2008 to the assessee towards the service tax and education cess for the period from January-2006 to October-2006, under Section 73 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act'). 2. Under the show-cause notice itself, the penalty was proposed to be levie .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... efore this Court. 5. Undoubtedly, the appellant has paid the taxes belatedly. However, the grievance of the appellant is entirely against the penalties imposed under Sections 76, 77 78 of the Act. Before the Tribunal, though the question of limitation was raised, no serious challenge against the payment of service tax is forthcoming. On facts, the Tribunal has concluded that there is no expla .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X