9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 917X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot produced any evidence before the lower authorities as well as before the Tribunal to come to a conclusion that abatement as provided in the notification needs to be extended. The evidences which are contemplated in the notification are inputs issued for providing of service. In the absence of any such evidence, the tax liability as fastened by the lower authorities is correct. Penalty - Held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it transpires that the issue is regarding demand of service tax for the period 2007-08 to 2010-11 in respect of service tax liability on erection, commissioning and installation service', 'business auxiliary services and GTA services . Both the lower authorities have held that the services are liable to be taxed. 4. Learned Counsel, after taking us through the entire case records, s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate authority in the impugned order in respect of 'business auxiliary service' and in 'GTA service' has clearly recorded detailed findings, as to why the claim of cum-tax benefit should not be extended to them and the first appellate authority has stated that the tax liability on GTA service was found correct and it was discharged and in the case of 'business auxiliary ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regards the penalty imposed, we find that the appellant may Have entertained a bonafide belief that they are eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 1/2006, could have misconstrued the provisions and hence did not discharge the tax liability. In our considered view, the penalty imposed on the appellant needs to be set aside by invoking the provisions of section80 of the Finance Act, 1994, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
