9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 - Dated:- 23-9-2019 - HON'BLE MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri Banumurthy, Advocate For the Appellant Shri Gopakumar, Jt. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 25/09/2008 passed by the Commissioner whereby the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of service tax amounting to ₹ 50,06,708/- under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 and appropriated the said amount out of the total amount of ₹ 53,47,592/- already paid by the assessee. He also confirmed the demand of interest under Section 75 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant also submitted that since they paid the service tax along with interest well before the issue of show-cause notice, penalty should be dropped. After considering the submissions of the parties, the learned Commissioner of Service Tax confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty and also appropriated amount of service tax and interest paid by the appellant. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and law. He further submitted that the appellant has a good case on merits as the appellant is rendering the Information Technology Service wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not in dispute. The appellant did not press on merits of the case and confined his submissions to dropping of various penalties imposed on them. Further we find that during the relevant period, there were conflicting decisions regarding the classification of the impugned service. The Department has also not brought any evidence on record to show that there was suppression of material fact with intent to evade payment of tax. Since the issue of penalty is squarely covered by the decision of the Karnataka High Court cited supra and by following the said decision, we drop the penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Appeal is allowed. (Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 23/0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
