9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, was not warranted. Consequently, the penalties imposed under Sections 77 and 78, are upheld and the penalty imposed under Section 76, is set aside. - case is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to afford an opportunity to the Respondent-Assessee to pay 25% of the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, on fulfillment of the conditions laid down therein - Following decision of Commissioner vs. Krishnaram Dyeing & Finishing Works [2013 (8) TMI 539 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - Decided partly in favour of Revenue.. - Service Tax Appeal No. ST/A/100/2010 - ORDER NO.FO/A/75108/2015 - Dated:- 20-2-2015 - Dr. D. M. Misra,J. For the Petitioner : Shri K. Chow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is in appeal before this Forum. 4. At the outset, ld. AR for the Revenue has submitted that the Order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is devoid of any reasoning passed without analysis of the facts, on the basis of which, the penalty had been imposed by the Adjudicating Authority. He submits that judgments referred to by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), in the cases of KSL Industries vs. CCE, Vapi, 2009(14) STR 839 (Tri.-Ahmd.) and Santhi Casting Works, 2009(15) STR 219(T-Chennai), are not applicable to the present circumstances of the case. In the former case, the issue was whether the provisions of Section 73(1A) would be applicable to Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. Similarly, in Santhi Casting Works case (supra), the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, they did not discharge the service tax on the amount received from M/S. BHEL. However, afterwards, on realization of their mistake, they had deposited the entire amount of service tax and interest. He submits that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly dropped the penalty against them. 7. Heard both sides and perused the records. I find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had not discussed the facts in detail, while setting aside the penalty imposed on the Respondent. On the other hand, the Adjudicating Authority deliberated in detail and analyzed the facts of the case, while imposing penalties on the Respondent under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. I find that in the Work Order dated 04.08.06 issued by M/s. BHE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sections 77 and 78, are upheld and the penalty imposed under Section 76, is set aside. I am also of the view, that the Appellant be given an opportunity to exercise their option to pay 25% of the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner vs. Krishnaram Dyeing Finishing Works, 2013(298)ELT-376 (Guj.). Thus, for this purpose, the case is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to afford an opportunity to the Respondent-Assessee to pay 25% of the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, on fulfillment of the conditions laid down therein. Revenue s Appeal is partly allowed on above terms. (Operative part of the Order w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
