9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice Tax under Section 66A of the Finance Act or not under reverse charge mechanism and the same has been settled by the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in November, 2008. Admittedly, the period in dispute is upto March, 2008. The benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act can be extended to the appellant, consequentially, no penalty imposed on the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal Nos. ST/126/2010, ST/716/2011 & ST/65,67/2016 - Final Order No. 62038-62041/2017 - Dated:- 18-7-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Sh. Rakesh Khanna, CA for the Appellant Sh. Harvinder Singh, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per : Ashok Jindal The appellant is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not to pay Service Tax as they were having sufficient Cenvat Credit balance in their Cenvat Credit account lying unutilized, therefore, benefit of Section 80 of the Act be given to them. It is further submitted that as the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 66A of the Finance Act 1994 was under challenge before the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association Vs. UOI 2009 (131) STR 235 (Bom.) and same has been decided by the Hon ble Bombay High Court on 11.12.2008. Therefore, under bona-fide belief they did not pay Service Tax under reverse charge mechanism, therefore, they are entitle for benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. He further submitted that in the case of RSWM Vs. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ters were under doubt that whether they are liable to pay Service Tax under Section 66A of the Finance Act or not under reverse charge mechanism and the same has been settled by the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in November, 2008. Admittedly, the period in dispute is upto March, 2008, in that circumstances, whether the appellant is entitled for benefit of Section 80 or not 8. A similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of RSWM V.s CCE (supra) wherein the facts of the case are as under:- 2. It is seen that during the relevant period, the appellant was engaged in manufacture and export of yarn and was availing the services of the Foreign Commission agents for the purpose of sale of its goods in foreign countries. The deman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tuation, the provisions of Section 80 were invoked and the benefit was extended to the appellant. Accordingly, we hold that in absence of any malafide on the part of the appellant, the imposition of penalty upon them is not justifiable, the same is accordingly set aside. The demand as also interest stands confirmed as not contested. 4. In as much as the benefit of Section 80 stand extended to the same assessee in respect of the same dispute for the earlier period, by following the same we set aside the imposition of penalties in the present appeals also. However, demand of tax and interest stands confirmed as not contested. As the facts of this case are similar to the case of RSWM Ltd. Vs. CCE (supra), therefore, we hold that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
