9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 777X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble cause for non payment of service tax and considering facts that the appellant has discharged service tax, before issuance of show cause notice, they are entitle for the waiver of penalty imposed under Section 76 invoking Section 80. - Decided in favor of assessee. - Appeal No. ST/85252/16 - A/87667/16/SMB - Dated:- 11-4-2016 - Mr Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) Shri. Rajiv Luthia, C.A.for the Appellants Ms. P. Vinitha Sekhar, Joint Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER Per Ramesh Nair This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. MUM-II-STAX-000-APP-10-15-16 dated 10/11/2015 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) of Service Tax-II, Mumbai Zone, whereby Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Orig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . C.A appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that appellant have not disputed the service tax liability and they have paid service tax alongwith interest within one month from pointed out by the investigating authority. He submits that non payment of service tax on due date has occurred due to the bonafide belief of the appellant that they are providing service of works contract with material and discharging VAT as per the VAT provisions. For this reason they were under belief that this sort of contract will not attract service tax. He submits that their bonafide belief also get re-enforced with the fact that they have neither charged service tax to the service recipient nor collected the same. He submits, since, the service tax along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... KAR ST] (d) M/s. Dr. B.B. Tanpure S.S.K Ltd Vs. CC, C ST, Aurangabad[2015(11) TMI 1186-CESTAT MUMBAI] 4. On the other hand, Ms. P. Vinitha Sekhar, Joint Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. She further submits that there is clear suppression of facts in the present case on the ground that the Director Dr. Kusum S. Joshi, partner of the appellant firm admitted that under SK Group of companies there were four sister concern out of which two were registered under service tax, therefore they were aware of the service tax provisions. Accordingly they deliberately avoided the payment of service tax for five years i.e. 2006-2010. This fact indicate the conduct of the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the Ld. Counsel as regard entertaining bonafide belief for non payment of service tax. As regard the Ld. A.R s submission that the appellant is one of the group companies, where in respect of two firm/companies appellant had obtained the service tax, registration and were paying the service tax therefore it cannot be said that appellant was not aware of service tax provisions. In this regard, I find that two firms were registered under service tax but in respect of GTA service and they were paying service tax on contract which only for labour job as submitted by the Ld. Counsel, it is not coming out from the record that whether this service of similar nature for such appellant had service tax registration. In view of the facts and cir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
