2007 (12) TMI 196

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t paid tax @ 8% and filed the return and therefore the allegation of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty is not sustainable – but penalty is imposable for delay in depositing differential amount of tax - ST/450/2007-SM(BR) - 106/2008-SM(BR)(PB), - Dated:- 14-12-2007 - Shri P.K. Das, Member (J) Shri Praveen Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S.L. Meena, DR, for the Res .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n of facts with intent to evade tax and therefore penalty under Sections 76 and 78 cannot be invoked. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE, Bangalore-II v. Sunitha Shetty reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 404 (Kar.) = 2004 (174) E.L.T. 313 (Kar.). 3. Learned DR on behalf of the respondent reiterates the finding of the Commissioner of Central Excis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hort payment of service tax has, in fact, been accepted by the assessee and consequently the sum of tax short paid earlier was paid subsequently on 24-11-2005 after pursuance of the matter by the department vide letters dated 25-5-2005, 7-7-05 and 4-8-2005". 5. I agree with the finding of the learned Commissioner that it is not a case of interpretation of law. It is very clear that the appella .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X