9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt is a company providing services of marketing of tickets, by entering into agreements with various event organisers for promoting marketing of tickets by undertaking ticketing services by charging services charges. They are also engaged in providing collection of payments, bar coding of tickets, delivery of tickets, managing box office operation etc. on behalf of the various clients and are also providing sponsorship services. On gathering intelligence regarding evasion of service tax by the appellant, DGCEI, Bangalore conducted investigations, during which, it came to light that, the assessee was charging delivery fee for every ticket delivered upon the ticket buyer request ticket sold, charging service charge on top of every ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest liability but did not impose penalty under Sections 76, 77 and 78 by extending the benefit under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 and holding that the service tax along with interest was paid before the issue of show-cause notice. Thereafter the Commissioner, while exercising the power of revisionary authority, issued a show-cause notice and after following due process, imposed the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act. Hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without appreciating the evidence on record. He further submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show-cause notice, then the assessee is not liable to pay penalty. 5. Learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions made by both the sides and perusal of the records and the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Motor World (supra), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that when the assessing authority in its discretion has held that no penalty is liable, by resorting to Section 80 of the Act, then the Revisionary Authority cannot invoke his jurisdiction under Section 80 and impose penalty, I am of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside by allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
