9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Penalty u/s 78 is attracted in case of any short levy etc. on account of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts including the contravention of the provisions of the Act or rules - such facts are not available in the facts of the present case - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 53553 of 2018-SM - A/50406/2019-SM[ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had deposited ₹ 26,83,183/- and service tax amounting to ₹ 9,16,546/- was yet to be paid. Similarly, for the period April, 2016 to August, 2016 tax worked out to ₹ 21,97,240/- was unpaid. On scrutiny of service tax return for the period April to September, 2016, it was seen that there is an outstanding amount of ₹ 21,97,240/-. Accordingly, for the alleged default in timely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Service Tax Rules, 1994 for delayed submission of ST-3 returns for the half year ending March, 2016 and September, 2016 and also appropriated the amount already paid. Further, the Asstt. Commissioner had not imposed penalty under Section 78, observing that there was bonafide financial hardship. Further, the appellant also remitted service tax alongwith interest before issue of show cause notice. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made out. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant states that penalty was not imposable as there is no element of suppression of facts or mis-declaration on the part of the appellant. It is admitted fact that they were paying tax regularly and have deposited the arrears of tax within a fortnight of so pointed out by the Revenue. The appellant was during the relevant time under financial crunch of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
