9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts from the department and had malafide intention to evade payment of service tax - since the appellant paid the service tax along with interest before issue of show cause notice penalty under Section 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 is not to be imposed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. ST/89415/2014 - A/85241/2018 - Dated:- 31-1-2018 - Shri S S Garg, Member (Judicial) And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Rajiv Luthia, Chartered Accountant for the appellant Shri Dilip Shinde, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER Per S S Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal No: NSK-EXCUS-000-APP-24-14-15 dated 3rd July 2014 passed by the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner (Appeals) who rejected the appeal and hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is passed without considering the facts of the case and also by ignoring the binding judicial precedent on the same issue. He further submitted that the appellant were registered and paying the service tax from the year 2006 regularly and has been filing the returns. But they had a bona fide belief that the services provided to MSEB being a government authority, was not liable to service tax and therefore, they did not collect the service tax from MSEB, but since the department pointed out they are liable to pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... viii. Shridhar Castings Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur 2015 (7) TMI 33 ix. Commissioner of Central Excise (LTU), Bangalore v. Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd 2011-TIOL-635-CESTAT-BANG. 5. On the other hand, Learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order and submitted that the appellant suppressed the material facts from the department as appellant has not informed the department regarding the service rendered to MSEB which was detected only when the investigation took place. 6. After considering the submissions made by both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the appellant has been paying the service tax regularly but with regard to MSEB since it was a government organisa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
