9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tigation in the court of law, the appellant has been able to show the reasonable cause for non-payment of Service Tax in time. It is also noted that the appellant did not try to hide anything, as the data of taxable value was correctly declared by the appellant in the books of account - waiver of penalty justified - also invocation of section 80, justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee. - APPEAL No. ST/87440/15-Mum - Order No.A/88188/16/SMB - Dated:- 27-6-2016 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri Suhas P. Bora, C.A., For Appellant Shri V.K. Kaushik, Assistant Commr. (A.R.), For Respondent Per: Ramesh Nair The appeal is directed against of Order-in-Appeal No. PUN-EXCUS-001-APP-0083-15-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Services and ₹ 28,254 towards Goods Transport Agency services was confirmed and the amount was already paid by the appellant has been appropriated against such demand. In addition, equal amount of penalty of ₹ 43,08,358/- was imposed under Section 78 and penalty of ₹ 10,000/- under Section 77(1)(a) was also imposed. The adjudicating authority also gave the option to the appellant for reduction of penalty to 25% under first proviso to Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, if the reduced amount of penalty is paid within 30 days of the date of communication of adjudication order. The appellant, aggrieved by the portion of the imposition of penalties, filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was rejected, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice. As per the above undisputed fact, the appellant have made out a clear case for waiver of penalty in terms of Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994. He further submits that since the Service Tax along with interest has been paid before issuance of show-cause notice without any protest, no show-cause notice sould have been issued by the Revenue in terms of Section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994, for this reason also no penalty is imposable. In support of his submission the appellant placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i) Shapoorji Pallonji Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax [CESTAT, Bangalore Final order No. 964/2010 dated 04.06.2010] (ii) ARC Hemant S Dugad Vs. CCE [(2008) 17 STT 31 (Mum-CESTAT SMB) (iii) Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a situation the appellant case is covered by Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 which reproduced below:- Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 - (3) Where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, the person chargeable with the service tax, or the person to whom such tax refund has erroneously been made, may pay the amount of such service tax, chargeable or erroneously refunded, on the basis of his own ascertainment thereof, or on the basis of tax ascertained by a Central Excise Officer before service of notice on him under sub-section (1) in respect of such service tax, and inform the [Central Excise Officer] of such payment in writing, who, on receipt of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
