9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1774X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eev Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Jain, D.R. ORDER PER: S.K. MOHANTY The issue involved in both the appeals is identical and accordingly, the same are taken up for hearing together and a common order is being passed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Corporation, established under the Prasar Bharati Act, 1990. During the disputed period, the appellant h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, he submitted that the cum-tax benefit has not been extended by the original authority. With regard to imposition of penalties, the ld. Advocate submits that the appellant is a statutory body and malafides cannot be attributed for imposition of the penalty. Further, he also pleads for the benefit of Section 80 of the Act, for non-imposition of penalty under Section 77 & 78 of the Act. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tax liability, which is payable by the appellant. 7. Since there is reasonable cause for non-payment of Service Tax within the stipulated time frame, we are of the view that the provisions of Section 80 of the Act can be invoked for non-imposition of penalties under Section 77 & 78 of the Act. Therefore, we set aside the penalty imposed in the impugned order under Section 77 & 78. 8. The app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
