9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 952X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice tax liability. Consequently revenue proceeded against them by way of issue of show cause notice on 2.12.1999. The case was adjudicated by the Original Authority who confirmed the service tax demand of ₹ 6,80,447/- for the period from 16.10.1998 to 31.6.1999. Interest was demanded. Penalties were imposed in the following manner. 1) ₹ 1,00,000/- under Section 76 of the Finance Act for non-payment of service tax. 2) A penalty of ₹ 5,000/- on Shri D. Venkata Rao, President Even though the show cause notice issued is only one there is an additional OIO dated 23.4.03 which is called an amendment order. In the amending order there is confirmation of an amount of ₹ 57,210/-. In this order there is a penalty of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y in payment of service filing and necessary returns as M/s. ONGC has not provided funds a reasonable cause for not. In view of the above, I do not see any justification for imposition upon the Appellants. The imposition of penalty on the Appellants in the impugned OIO is accordingly set aside. 10. Coming to the question of imposition of penalty of ₹ 5,000/- on the President of the society, I agree with the Appellants contentions that the Presidents acts as per the combined decision of the Board of Directors of the society and there is no justification of penalizing the President of society. In view of the above, I set aside the imposition of penalty under the Appellants. Rest of the portions of the impugned OIO is upheld. The subj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey were of the view that there was no liability cast on them. That belief was also based on the advice given to them by M/s. ONGC. This fact has been appreciated by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and he has used his discretion to set aside the penalty. Moreover we find that the respondent is a cooperative society consisting of ex-service men. It is a fact that they had not paid the service tax on a bonafide belief and also the said tax amount was not collected from M/s. ONGC. Once M/s. ONGC cleared this amount, they paid it. So we agree with the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that there was no willful intention on their part to evade service tax. There is no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner. Therefore, we uphold it and reject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
