9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1088X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of C. Ramachandran Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai [2016 (7) TMI 1036 - CESTAT CHENNAI] had considered the issue as to the penalty imposed when the appellant had entertained a bonafide belief as to whether the TDS deducted has to be included in the taxable value of the services. In the said judgment, the penalty imposed under section 78 was set aside by the Tribunal. In the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntities. The appellant had failed to pay service tax on the TDS amount deducted by these organizations. They were issued with a show-cause notice, dated 11.05.2011 demanding differential service tax of ₹ 4,76,636/-. The period involved is from 2006-07 to 2010-11; penalty under Section 78 was also proposed to be imposed. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of tax and penalty. Aggr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en before the show-cause notice was issued. It was only due to a mistaken belief that the appellant had not paid service tax on the amount deducted as TDS. Therefore, it is prayed that the penalty imposed under Section 78 may be set aside. Reliance is placed on C. Ramachandran Vs CST - 2016 (46) STR 866 (Tri. - Chennai) and M/s. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd Vs CCE - 2016 (46) STR 615 (Tri - Mumba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal in the case of C. Ramachandran Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai reported in 2016 (46) S.T.R. (Tri. -Chennai) had considered the issue as to the penalty imposed when the appellant had entertained a bonafide belief as to whether the TDS deducted has to be included in the taxable value of the services. In the said judgment, the penalty imposed under section 78 was set aside by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
