9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorized Representative (A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER The only issue that was urged on behalf of the appellant, was the levy of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. A Show Cause Notice dated 26.04.2018 was issued covering the following periods: (i) 01.07.2012 to 31.05.2015; (ii) 01.06.2015 to 31.10.2015; (iii) 01.11.2015 to 31.05.2016; and (iv) 01.06.2016 to 30.06.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntions, gone through the documents placed on record and have also gone through the decisions relied upon during the course of arguments. 5.1 Penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is imposed when there is non-levy, short levy, short payment or erroneous refund by reason of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, etc., on the part of an assessee with an intention to evade the payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the concerned customer account and accordingly, details of such payment was neither captured in the system of the bank nor was there any regulatory requirement for the same. The draft Order-in-Original, however, has ignored the very taxability without clearing the above doubts. This is sufficient to hold that the appellant has only acted in good faith being a public sector undertaking. 5.2 Moreov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal factor to hold that any mala fide intention to evade payment of Service Tax would not be attributed, to levy penalty under Section 78 ibid. This view finds support in : (i) M/s. Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore North [Service Tax Appeal No. 224 of 2009 in Final Order No. 21289 of 2018 dated 04.12.2018 - CESTAT, Bangalore]; (ii) M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
