9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside the penalty imposed under Section 78 - However, penalty u/s 77 is reduced - Decided partly in favour of Revenue. - Appeal No. ST/88547/14, ST/CO/91140/14 - Final Order No. A/2268-2269/2015-WZB/SMB - Dated:- 12-6-2015 - Ramesh Nair, Member (J),J. For the Appellant : Shri A B Kulgod, Asst Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent : Shri Sadashiv Hawaldar, Adv. ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair: This Revenue's appeal is against Order-in-Appeal No. PUN-EXCUS-001-APP-051-14-15 dated 31/7/2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Pun-1, wherein, Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the penalty imposed under Section 78 and reduced penalty from 20,000/- to ₹ 500/- imposed under Section 77. Revenue has filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn. By invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, penalty under Section 78 was correctly dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals) as regard the reduction of penalty under Section 77, he submits that entire records was with the consultant and appellant was under bonafide belief that since, entire job of depositing service tax and filing of the returns was assigned to the consultant therefore they are under bonafide belief that the returns might have been filed regularly. In this position, the Commissioner has correctly reduced penalty from ₹ 20,000/- to ₹ 500/- which does not require any interference. 4. I have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the record. 5. The present Revenue's appeal is on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsultant. The show cause notice states that the department has filed F.I.R. with the police authorities for the fraudulent act on the part of the consultant. The appellants also not been named in the F.I.R. along with the consultant. The Ld. Adjudicating authority has not accepted the plea of the Appellants regarding payment of amount of service tax to consultant and their banafide belief that the consultant has deposited the amount, on the grounds that they has not ascertained the authenticity of such payment from the jurisdictional service tax Superintendent. In view of the these facts that there is no evidence on record to prove collusion of the appellant with the consultant and the fact that the appellants are not made party in the FIR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
