9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent Per Archana Wadhwa: The challenge in the present appeal is to imposition of penalties under section 77 &78 of the Finance Act 1994. It is seen that the appellant was engaged in providing taxable services and for the said purpose they were registered with the service tax department. However, they were also receiving sponsorship services from various vendors which were made taxa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 erroneous/y 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 no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a mere delay in depositing the service tax or a fact of inadvertent mistakes in not including the value in some cases. 5. In terms of the said provisions of law, in case of non-levy or short levy of service tax, if the same is paid either by the appellants themselves or as ascertained by the central excise officers before the service and notice to him, no notice is required to be served. Explanat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entering into the sponsorship agreement with the services provider was duly brought to the notice of the Revenue and the appellant was discharging its service tax liabilities in respect of said agreement. As such it cannot be said that there was any malafide intention on the part of the assessee. If that be so no penalties are required to be imposed. Accordingly we set aside the penalties imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
