9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposition of penalty. Though the adjudicating authorities below have formed an opinion about apparent suppression of facts on the part of the appellant, but it is an acknowledgement on part of the original adjudicating authority about the submission of the appellants since beginning that no service tax was received on either of the income which have been allegedly made liable to service tax and that the appellant was under bonafide impression to not to be liable to pay any service tax thereupon - the moment the shortcoming and liability was brought to the notice of the appellant, the same has been discharged even prior to issuance of show cause notice. Thus, this is not the case of suppression of facts. Penalty set aside - the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicating authority vide Order No. 23 JP/2015 dated 27th March, 2015, wherein the penalties under Section 76, as well as 78 of the Finance Act were imposed upon the appellant. The appeal thereof was though rejected, however, the penalty under Section 76 was dropped and the demand of Service Tax was confirmed to the extent of ₹ 9,16,687/-. Still being aggrieved, the appellant preferred this appeal. However, has failed to diligently pursue the same except for filing the written submissions. At this stage arguments on behalf of Department heard. 2. Ld. D.R., has impressed upon para 10 of the Order-in Appeal with the specific observation that the appellant had admitted its liability to pay the demand and the same was paid even prio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of show cause notice. To my mind, this is not the case of suppression of facts. The case law as relied upon by the Department for the said reason is, therefore, found not applicable to the present facts and circumstances. Hence, the penalty as has been confirmed under Section 78 is liable to be set aside. 5. The amount of service tax since stands already deposited and the license fee as well as commission income as received by the appellant being an amount received on account of discharging business auxiliary services, the same is held to be the liability of the appellant, which stands already discharged. There is no infirmity in appropriating the said amount to the Government account. 6. As a result of entire above discussion, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
