9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Representative (DR) ORDER P.K. Das, 1. The appellant filed this appeal against imposition of penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are receiver of transport service by road. Service tax was introduced on 01.01.2005. By letter dated 31.10.2005, the Superintendent of Central Excise informed the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant. The learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that it is a new levy on GTA service. He submits that the CBEC vide letter No. 341/18/2004-TRU (PT) dated 17.12.2004 clarified that in case of omission in payment of tax or procedural lapse by persons liable to pay service tax on the goods transported by road before 31.12.2005, no penal provision should be invoked. He also relied upon th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, imposition of penalty for this period is not justified. Further, no material was produced by the Revenue in support of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of tax and imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Act is not warranted. However, I find force in the submission of the learned DR in respect of imposition of penalty of ₹ 13059/- for delayed payment of tax f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
