9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g extended time and also for imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Service Tax Appeal No.787 of 2010 - ST/A/58638/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 8-12-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) (Rep. by Sh. R. Kumar, DR), for the Appellant (Rep by None), for the Respondent ORDER Per B. Ravichandran The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No.183(DK)ST/JPR-I/2010 dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Jaipur. The period in dispute is April to September, 2006. 2. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has allowed the appeal of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it on the ground that the appellant knew that service tax was payable by them and that they never disclosed the fact of obtaining commission by them. No evidence has been given by the adjudicating authority as to how he came to the conclusion that appellant knew that service tax is payable by them particularly when Commissioner(Appeals) Jaipur vide his order dated 27.3.2006 has held that service tax is not payable on the activity carried out by the appellant. As regards non-disclosing of commission, the same cannot be treated as suppression of facts etc with intent to evade payment of service tax as appellant had bonaflde belief on the basis of Hon'ble Commissioner(Appeals). Jaipur order dated 27.3.2006. I thus find that the Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and of service tax amounting to ₹ 13,25,275/- for the period April 2006 to September 2006 as time barred and uphold the balance demand of service tax for ₹ 13,87,614/- for the period October, 2006 to March 2007. Since the appellant has already paid ₹ 13,36,000/- vide various challans dated 29.3.2008, 29.3.2008 and 7.9.2007, the same is appropriated in the Government account for the period from October 2006 to March 2007. Held accordingly. 5. On the face of the above factual finding by the Commissioner (Appeals), we find that the present grounds of appeal by the Revenue has no force. We have no reason to interfere with the above recorded finding with which we are in agreement. As no other issues are raised in the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
