9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a was introduced in 2012 itself there could be a bona fide belief on the part of the appellant to entertain a belief that the services provided by them are not taxable. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary indicating any mala fide on the part of the appellant,the longer period of limitation is not available to the Revenue - the demand is set aside on the issue of time bar. As a part of the demand may fall within the limitation period, the Original Adjudicating Authority is directed to re-quantify the same to whom matter is being remanded. Penalty - HELD THAT:- In the absence of mala fide on the part of the appellant the imposition of penalty upon them is not justified - penalty set aside. Appeal allowed by way of remand. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 78 of the Finance Act. In addition penalty of ₹ 60,000/- was imposed under Section 70 of the Act read with Rule 7C of the Cenvat Credit Rules. On appeal the said order of the Original Adjudicating Authority was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) and hence the present appeal. 4. It is seen that the appellant had not disputed the fact of providing of services and have simplicitor submitted that the show cause notice issued to them is vague inasmuch as the category of services provided by them has not been specified. However, I find that the period involved is subsequent to 2012 and the Appellate Authority has observed as under:- 6.1.1 From the above excerpts of the statements it is evident that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvoking proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Act. Under the circumstances, and in view of the provisions of Section 73 (4) of the Act, the provisions of Section 73 (3) are not applicable in the case of the appellant, as claimed by him. The demand of service tax alongwith the interest is therefore sustainable. Consequently, penalty of equal amount imposed under Section 78 of the Act is also upheld. 5. As it is not the appellant s case that the services provided by them were excluded from the areena of service tax or the same were exempted under any particular Notification, I find no merits in their case. However, it is seen that the demand stands confirmed by invoking longer period limitation. As the negative list ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
