2018 (5) TMI 1232

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se, Chandigarh [2008 (11) TMI 87 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], it was held that no penalty can be imposed in the case of such statutory or government body as there could not be any mala fide intention to evade payment of duty - penalty set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Mr. S.S Garg, Judicial Member Dr. J. Harish, AR - For the Appellant Mr. A. V. Muralidharan, Advocate - For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 20.9.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) dropped the penalties imposed under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 by invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 39) STR 785 and also relied upon the Circular No.889/09/2009-CX dated 21.5.2009 issued by CBEC and are applicable in the present case. The learned AR further submitted that the assessee had suppressed the value of taxable service and contravened the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 and Service Tax Rules with intend to evade payment of service tax and once the assessee has suppressed the facts, then the Revenue is justified in invoking the extended period and imposed the penalty under Section 78. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee defended the impugned order and submitted that the Commissioner (A) has given sufficient reasons for invoking Section 80 in the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... local authority and as such have no direct or indirect interest in suppressing any facts from the department with an intent to evade any tax. It is inferred that the non-compliance of rules and regulations was on a bona fide belief that the services provided by them are not taxable, which shows that they had no mala fide intention to evade service tax. Accordingly, the amount said to have been paid by the appellant is to be appropriated. However, being part of government establishment, the non-revelation cannot be treated as intention, and no mens rea can be established behind the alleged suppression of facts with intent to evade service tax; and the appellant has submitted befitting citations regarding waiver of penalties in such cases. Ac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X