9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 908X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clear only after the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian national Ship Owners Association Vs. UOI [2008 (12) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - penalty not imposable on appellant by invoking section 80 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No.419 of 2011-SM - A/11380/2017 - Dated:- 12-7-2017 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) Prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, they paid an amount of ₹ 13,38,217/- towards their service tax liability and later remaining amount was paid along with interest. Show cause notice was issued to them on 20.10.2009 for appropriation of the amount already paid and proposal for imposition of penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed and penalty of equal amount was imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , misstatement of facts under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is unwarranted and unjustified. He pleads that this is a fit case for invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. In support of his submission, he has referred to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Matrix Telecom P. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Vadodara-II - 2013 (32) STR 423 (Tri-Ahmd.). 4. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
