9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The issue in this appeal by the Revenue is whether the Commissioner (Appeals) is correct in setting aside the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act. 2. The brief facts are that the respondent is registered with the Services Tax Department, is engaged in providing various taxable services namely Consulting Engineer Services, Installation and Commissioning Services, Business Support Services and information Technology Service. They are engaged in export of the services in terms of export of Service Rules, 2004. They availed facility of Cenvat Credit of the input services etc. The respondent was also receiving taxable services like, Information and Technology Servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The balance amount of liability Rs.(27,24,867-10,08,618) or ₹ 17,16,249/- was adjusted by the Department on 31 March, 2010, against refund due to the appellant for which claim was filed on 11 August, 2009. Thereafter, show cause notice dated 23 July, 2010 was issued alleging that non-payment of Service Tax came to the knowledge of Revenue in the course of audit during August, and accordingly, it appeared that the respondent have contravened the provisions of the Act and the Rules inasmuch as they failed to assess and pay Service Tax liability for services received from outside India on Reverse Charge Basis, as applicable under Section 66A of the Finance Act. It further appeared that during the period October, 2008 to July, 2009, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th a prayer for adjustment of the balance dues from their periodical refund for ₹ 75,76,655/- filed on 11 th August, 2009 further stating that even the interest was paid in August, 2010 soon after issue of the show cause notice in July, 2010, although the said amount could have been adjusted from the balance amount of refund, in March, 2010 itself. Further urged that as the respondent is entitled to Cenvat Credit of the Service Tax paid/payable on Reverse Charge Basis, the situation is wholly Revenue neutral and there is no loss of Revenue. It was also urged that due to the nature of business of the appellant being mainly export of service, the respondent is entitled to refund of Cenvat Credit taken and in this view of the matter, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Service Tax attributable to financial hardship. That penalty, under Section 80, is eligible for waiver only if there is reasonable cause for the failure to pay Service Tax, which is absent in this case. 6. The learned AR for the Revenue Mr. S.P. Nair (AC) have relied on the Order-in-Original and the grounds of appeal. He has vehemently argued that the respondent-assessee deliberately showed the amount of outstanding Service Tax as paid in the original return for the period October 2008 to March, 2009. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent-assessee opposing the appeal relies on the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and stated that there is no merit in the appeal of the Revenue. The learned counsel relied on the groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
