9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1008X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Commissioner (Appeals) has attained finality, wherein it has been held that there is no mens rea involved in the present case, therefore, relying on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Saswad Mali Sugar Factory Ltd.(2013 (11) TMI 1009 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ), I hold that the extended period of limitation is not invokable. Therefore, demands confirmed by invoking the extended period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e shops. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and also imposed various penalties under section 76, 77 and 78 of the Act. The said order was challenged by the appellant before Commissioner (Appeals) who dropped the penalty under Rule 76, 77 of the Act holding that there was no mens rea involved in the present case but confirmed the Service tax liability. Aggrieved by the said order, appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e from 1.6.2007 and the appellant has taken a plea that they were not aware of the said levy is applicable on them but under the bonafide belief that they were not required to pay tax on leasing of shops and hiring of shops. But as shops have been leased out, so they were required to pay the service tax and they cannot take the benefit of their ignorance, therefore extended period of limitation is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing mandatory penalty in terms of Section 78 of the Finance Act and hold that the appellant is not liable to mandatory penalty under the provisions of Section 78 of the Finance Act. Since the penalty under Section 78 is not imposable therefore penalty under section 76 also shall not be imposed upon them. However, since they have contravened the provisions of Section 69 of the Act ibid, as they ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
