9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority that there was any suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of tax on the part of the appellant. In the absence of such evidence, the penalty imposed u/s.78 cannot sustain - Further, during the relevant period, there was much confusion as to whether service tax under GTA would be applicable to the appellant and the issue being interpretational one, penalty cannot sustain. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Show Cause Notice was issued demanding the sum alongwith interest and for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 2,43,017/- alongwith interest and imposed penalty u/s.76 of the Finance Act, 1994. Though the show cause notice proposed to impose penalty u/s.78 also, the original authority had not imposed penalty u/s.78. Aggrieved by this, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not discharge the service tax. There was no deliberate intention to evade payment of service tax. He adverted to the orders passed by the authorities below and submitted that there is absolutely no finding with regard to the fact that appellant has suppressed facts with intention to evade payment of tax. In the absence of evidence adduced by the department that the appellant has deliberately ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsence of such evidence, the penalty imposed u/s.78 cannot sustain. Further, during the relevant period, there was much confusion as to whether service tax under GTA would be applicable to the appellant and the issue being interpretational one, we are of the opinion that the penalty calls for waiver in terms of Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994. 6. In K.Gopalakrishnan vs CCE, Chennai 2017 (7) GST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
