9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [2016 (11) TMI 1353 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] is squarely applicable in the present case wherein it has been consistently held that in the case of PSU, there cannot be any malafide intent to avail irregular and unavailable credit Penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/20031/2019-SM - Final Order No. 20128/2019 - Dated:- 31-1-2019 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 88,437/- and have not paid ₹ 3,12,101/- being the Service Tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism on Works Contract Service for January 2013 to November 2013 under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Original Authority, after considering the submissions of the appellant, confirmed the demand and appropriated the amount paid by the appellant and also imposed penalties of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the penalty if there is a reasonable cause for failure to pay the duty, was omitted w.e.f. 14.05.2015. He further submitted that the demand in the present case relates to January 2013 to November 2013 and at that time, Section 80 was very much in existence in the Finance Act, 1994. He further submitted that the appellant is a PSU and there cannot be any suppression with malafide intention to evade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record and the various decisions relied upon by the appellant cited supra, I find that the appellant is a PSU and one of the largest tax-payers of Service Tax; there was excess availment of CENVAT credit which was reversed/paid by the appellant and Service Tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism on Work ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
