9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urn and non-payment of tax - immediately deposited the entire amount of tax with interest even before the case is adjudicated – delay occurred because appellant was under the impression that tax is to be paid when the amount is received from the recipient of the services - bona fide belief of the appellants - So, the imposition of penalty is not warranted X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount as deposited by them. He also imposed penalty of equal amount under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 separately and penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77 of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the Adjudication Order to the extent that penalty under Section 78 was set aside and the penalty under Section 76 was reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs. 2. The learned Advocate submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 005 (180) E.L.T. 363 (T) 3. The learned DR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the Appellants opted for registration in 1998 and they have not filed the return till 2004 and therefore, the imposition of penalty under Section 76 is justified. He further submits that the case laws cited by the learned Advocate are not applicable in the facts of the present case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not mandatory. In the present case, the respondent paid the tax and a part of interest accrued even before the case is adjudicated. His plea was that he was not receiving payment from his customers in time and that resulted in delayed payment of service tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered this plea before he set aside the penalty. I do not see any infirmity in that finding." The Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
