9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 827X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t contesting the demand for the period post 1.4.2011 and, accordingly, the demand of ₹ 32,322/- and appropriate interest is confirmed. As regards penalty, I find that appellants have acted in a bonafide manner and there is no malafide intention to evade payment of tax, and therefore penalty is not imposable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, penalty is set aside in res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal, appellants have challenged the order of the learned appellate authority denying service tax credit on various input services availed by them during the period December 2010 to June 2011. The original authority confirmed the demand with interest under Rule 14 of CCR 2004 for the delayed payment of duty and also imposed penalty under Rule 15 of CCR 2004 which is upheld in the OIA. Both the low ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the belated payment of demand and they are only pleading for setting aside penalty. 2.1. However, ld. Consultant submits that they are contesting the demands as per Sl.No.1 to 11 of the list, involving a total credit amount of Rs.56,832/- for the period upto 31.3.2011. 3. Ld. A.R submits that as per the definition, even prior to 1.4.2011 these services are not covered under the defin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, penalty is set aside in respect of the which is not disputed, subject to payment of interest by the appellants. 5. As regards the demand for the period prior to 1.4.2011 , I find that the Revenue s reliance on Hon ble Bombay High Court decision in Manikgarh Cement (supra) has no relevance as the said decision was rendered basing reliance on Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
