9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leared the service tax along with interest on his own, then no penal proceedings can be initiated against them and all the proceedings against the appellant are deemed to have been concluded. Once the appellant has paid the service tax along with interest due, then the penalty cannot be imposed as there was no mens rea on the part of the appellant to evade payment of service tax - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/65/2009-SM - 20997/2017 - Dated:- 29-6-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Sushen S., Advocate For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 27.10.2008 passed by the Commissioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 in the impugned order, which is reproduced herein below and hence, the present appeal. 6. The first demand for service tax confirmed is ₹ 6,344/-. This amount is a differential service tax which became payable when the records were subjected to scrutiny by the anti-evasion officers of the department. The difference i.e., short payment was due to some arithmetical errors. Therefore, it is evident that there was no suppression or misstatement leading to short payment. The appellant are liable to pay the interest on the said amount under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. In the facts and circumstances, I set aside the penalty imposed under Section 76 and 78 of the Act, ibid, in respect of this demand. 3. Learned counsel fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Profit and Loss account, the appellant noticed that it had inadvertently omitted paying service tax on some services rendered to some of its customers and on noticing this omission, the appellant intimated the department the actual figure and paid the service tax of ₹ 52,517/- along with interest of ₹ 31,860/- vide TR6 Challan dated 1.12.2006. He also submitted that the delay in payment of service tax occurred due to amendment of Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994 by Finance Act, 2005 and Notification No.23/2005 dated 7.6.2005 on which the appellant had sought legal opinion. He further submitted that in the show-cause notice no ground for fraud, collusion or wilful misstatement and no mens rea are established. In support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant had a doubt about the taxability of the impugned services. Further, I find that in the decision relied upon by the appellant, the Division Bench of this Tribunal has held that if the assessee cleared the service tax along with interest on his own, then no penal proceedings can be initiated against them and all the proceedings against the appellant are deemed to have been concluded. Here it is pertinent to reproduce para 4 of the said decision, which is reproduced herein below: 4. On a very careful consideration of the entire issue, we find that in respect of each of the cases, due to bona fide belief, the appellants did not discharge the Service Tax liability in time. But, as soon as the lapse was pointed out by the departmenta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
