9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2099X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Section 78 penalty – Revenue admitted that entire tax was paid before the issue of SCN – Revenue stated further that imposing penalty under Section 77, intention to evade payment of service tax, is not required – Held That:- No intention to evade payment of service tax can be attributed on the part of the Appellant - Ingredient contained in Section 78 are not satisfied – Appeal allowed – Decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 78 77 respectively of the Finance Act, 1994. That in addition Service Tax demand of ₹ 1,05,659/- has also been confirmed by the Adjudicating authority when no such demand was made under the show cause notice dated-20/11/2008. Learned Consultant relied upon the case law of C.C. Bangalore Vs. Siddaganga Cements (P) Ltd. [2010 (262) ELT 495 (Tri-Bangalore) to argue that when dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o CENVAT Credit and that there cannot be any intention to evade payment of service tax for imposing Section 78 penalty. 3. Shri S.P. Pal, Appraiser (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue confirms that entire tax was paid before the issue of show cause notice and that no service tax has been demanded in the show cause notice. It was his case that for imposing penalty under Section 77 of the F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e attributed on the part of the appellant and no such allegations have been made in the show cause notice. Even no demand of service tax has been made against the appellant in show cause notice dated 20/11/2008 invoking extended period. As the ingredient contained in Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 are not satisfied, therefore, penalty imposed upon the appellant under Section 78 of the Finance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
