9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i K.Chowdhury, Authorized Representative for the Revenue Shri N.K.Chowdhury, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Both sides are in appeal against the impugned order. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of low ash metallurgical coke and coke breeze. For the activities, the assessees have taken services from Goods Transport Services and did not pay service tax in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position of penalty under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, whereas the Revenue's appeal is contested for dropping the penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. Heard both sides. 5. Considering the facts that there is no dispute that the service tax has been paid by the service provider, although the same was paid by the assesse under reverse charge mechanism and the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r imposition of penalty u/s 76 on the assessee (service recipients) and further penalty under Section 77 of the Act on the concerned transport agencies rendering GTA services. The Ld. DR does not dispute the fact which is on record, that service tax amount has been duly deposited, either by the transport agencies or by the assessee for the remaining portion, well before the issue of Show Cause S.T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gument of the assessee that in terms of the provisions of Section 80 of the Act, they are entitled to full waiver of penalty under Section 78 as well as Section 76 and 77 of the Act, inasmuch there was a reasonable case for non payment of tax as the very levy of service tax on GTA service under reverse charge was a new concept. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to burden the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
