9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder section 65 (105) (zzb) of the Act ibid. They had received an amount of Rs. 9,75,752/- as commission during the period 09.7.2004 to 31.3.2005, as per details supplied vide letters dated 18.10.2005 by M/s.Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Karnal. The appellant neither got themselves registered with the Service Tax Department nor paid the Service Tax amounting to Rs. 99,527/- as required under Section 68 of the Act. The appellant deposited Service Tax of Rs. 49,737/- on 31.03.2005 and submitted their return on 29.04.2005. Service Tax was paid less as they did not include bargain discount paid to purchasers and TDS deducted by the mill out of total commission. Subsequently, they deposited Rs. 39,730/- on 27.03.2006. A show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has taken the correct view as the service tax had just been introduced. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Darmania Enterprises-2009 (14) STR 741 (P&H). 3. Learned AR for the Revenue reiterated the finding in the revision order of the Commissioner. 4. Heard rival submissions and perused the records. 5. I find that the Ld. Commissioner in his revision order has imposed penalties under Section 77 and Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. No justification is given for penalty under Section 77. Penalty under Section 78 is imposed by giving finding that there was suppression. However, it is not brought on record as to what is basis of suppression. Commission Agent Service was incorporated in Bus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espite the provisions of Section 78, no penalty should be imposed on the assessee for any failure referred in that section if the assessee has shown that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. The provision under Section 78 of the Act is required to be acted upon in the absence of finding of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts etc., as envisaged by Section 78 of the Act. The order-in-original dated 15-6-2005 (A-1) does not record any finding of fraud, mis-statement etc., which could have been the basis for acquiring jurisdiction to impose the penalty. Accordingly, the Assessing Authority exercised the power under Section 80 of the Act and decided not to impose any penalty under Section 78. There was no bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
