9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at there was considerable resistance from the latter for paying up the service tax component of the invoices raised by the appellant. It was only vide their letter dt. 25.03.2009 that Poompuhar, finally agreed to process and release service tax payments w.e.f. 16.05.2008 on certain conditions. However, there was still further correspondence on this very dispute even till April 2009. There is reasonable cause for appellant in their failure to discharge tax liability when it was due. In any case, the amount of ₹ 7 crores appropriated by the adjudicating authority is more enough to cover the interest liability that would accrue due to late payment - appellants are entitled to get waiver from penalty under Section 80 ibid - appeal allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appeal is restricted only to imposition of penalty. Ld. Advocate also made oral and written submissions which can be broadly summarized as under : (i) Poompuhar initially disputed the applicability of service tax being a Government owned company and finally agreed to pay service tax. The consideration was split into two namely higher charges and service tax element thereon. The later was paid belatedly and the Appellant paid the same to the Exchequer as and when received. The Appellant is also responsible to send the proof of payment to Poompuhar. The liability for the period 16.05.2008 to 11.11.2008 was paid on 23.12.2008 and on 18.05.2009. (ii) The Appellant in their reply to the Show Cause Notice specifically pointed out t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and have gone through the facts. 5.1 The appellants have pointed out that the delay in discharging service tax liability was only due to Poompurhar disputing the applicability of service tax on the grounds that they were a government owned company. No doubt, para 2.1 of the SCN mentions that though the assessee obtained service tax registration on 11.7.2008 and had raised invoices on service receiver by charging service tax separately, however they did not pay service tax liability. From perusal of the correspondence submitted by appellant between them and Poompuhar clearly shows to indicate that there was considerable resistance from the latter for paying up the service tax component of the invoices raised by the appellant. It was onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
