9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned order of the Tribunal. The order dated 5th April 2016 of the Tribunal not imposing penalty is one on facts, no substantial question of law arises - Appeal dismissed. - CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 192 OF 2017 - - - Dated:- 19-9-2018 - M.S. SANKLECHA RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ. Ms. P.S. Cardozo, for the Appellant. Mr. R.G. Sheth a/w Ms. Pinky D. Chainani, for the Respondent. ORDER : 1. This Appeal under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 ( the Act ) read with Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenges the order dated 5th April 2016 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal ). 2. Ms. Cardozo, the learned Counsel for the Revenue states that the challenge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 003 to March, 2006 by appropriating the above payments under the head business auxiliary services. The Respondent resisted the Show Cause Notice. However, the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise by an order dated 14th June 2010 confirmed the Show Cause Notice and also imposed penalty under Sections 76 and 78 of the Act. 6. On Appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Respondent's Appeal by holding that the services rendered by the respondent would be appropriately classifiable under business support service which was introduced only in 2006. Thus, prior thereto no tax was payable on the services rendered. This was after placing reliance upon the various decisions including the decision of this Court in Indian National Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal submits that once the duty payments has been confirmed, the penalty should have been imposed. This as the notice was issued under the proviso of Section 73 of the Act. 9. We find that in the present fact while service tax has been confirmed following the decision of its Coordinate Bench in South City Motors Ltd. (supra). However, the same decision is relied upon to hold that no penalty is imposable where there was divergence of view. Therefore, in these facts, there was reasonable cause for non payment of service tax making Section 80 of the Act applicable. It is not as though the confirmation of demand would ipso facto lead to penalty. In fact, Section 80 of the Act provides for non imposition of penalty, if there is a reasonab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
