9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat: - The allegation in the notice for imposing penalty u/s 78 did not bring out any evidence for invoking charge of fraud, willful misstatement etc. on the part of the appellant. The only reason quoted is that but for detection by the officers, the non-payment would have escaped notice. We note this assertion by himself will not support the ground for the charge of suppression, fraud, collusion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey have paid certain charges to a foreign entity, this attracts service tax on reverse charge basis in terms of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994, under the category of 'Banking Finance and other Financial Services'. The non-payment of service tax was detected by the officers and on being pointed out the appellant discharged the same with applicable interest. The original authority who decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etc. against the appellant. The said allegation was not supported by any evidence. Accordingly, he submitted that imposition of penalty, in such situation, is totally uncalled for. Even if the SCN has been issued, considering the circumstances of introduction of new concept of liability on reverse charge basis, they should be extended the benefit of Section 80 of the Act. 3. The Ld. AR submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of fraud, willful misstatement etc. on the part of the appellant. The only reason quoted is that but for detection by the officers, the non-payment would have escaped notice. We note this assertion by himself will not support the ground for the charge of suppression, fraud, collusion etc. Further, we note that the full service tax liability along with interest has been discharged well before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
