9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 871X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice tax. Held that:- it is clear that there were sufficient reasons for the respondents in bona fidely believing that they were not liable to service tax during the relevant period especially when we view the amendments in the definition of “Industrial Construction” service made on 28.4.2006 by the Finance Act, 1994 made effective with effect from 1.5.2006 and the C.B.E.C’s letter No. 334/4/2006-TRU dated 28.2.2006; thus invoking the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act and the provisions of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, the respondents’ case on non-imposition of penalty is sustainable and the appeal filed by the Revenue deserves to be rejected. - Decided against the revenue. - ST/2048/2012-SM - Final Order No. 20167 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial or Industrial Construction defined under Section 65(105)(zzq) of the Finance Act, 1994 earlier used by words Commercial Concern which was substituted by wordings by any other person by Finance Act, 2006 dated 18.4.2006 with effect from 1.5.2006, and therefore, the respondents had been under the impression that they being proprietary concern were not covered by wordings commercial concern and were consequently not liable to payment of service tax. She has also referred to C.B.E.C. letter No. 334/4/2006-TRU dated 28.2.2006 saying that in case of certain services, the Department states that wordings commercial concern was substituted with the word person so as to extend the scope of services in question. In support, she cited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondents premises based on the intelligence that the respondents were not remitting service tax involved, it is also on record that the respondents paid the dues of service tax along with interest on 27.9.2006 i.e. within 09 days of the visit of the Departmental officers. The learned Commissioner (A.R.) though very vehemently pleads that the respondents willfully suppressed and mis-stated the facts and are covered by mischief the provisions of Section 73(4) of the Finance Act, 1994, the Revenue has not been able to prove this mischief of willful suppression of facts on the part of the respondents. Learned A.R. points out that appeal of the respondents to the Commissioner (Appeals) was against the penalty imposed by the Order-in-Original; i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submission. 4.3. The respondents mention during the hearing today that they had filed Cross objections, which inter-alia argue that they had cited the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 in their favour stating that under the provisions of Section 80, they are entitled to non-imposition of penalty in their case. 5. Considering the full facts and circumstances available on record, and the discussions made above, it is clear that there were sufficient reasons for the respondents in bona fidely believing that they were not liable to service tax during the relevant period especially when we view the amendments in the definition of Industrial Construction service made on 28.4.2006 by the Finance Act, 1994 made effective wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
