9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... belief that for the work undertaken prior to 16.10.1998 he would not be liable for the service tax - Moreover, appellant paid the service tax along with the interest on being pointed out by the department – therefore, there is no justification for imposition of penalties - ST/96/2006 - 1017/2008 - Dated:- 28-8-2008 - Dr. S.L. Peeran, Member (Judicial) and Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (Technical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 2,20,430/-. The Original Authority confirmed the payment of Rs.2,20,430/- and demanded differential tax amounting to Rs. 24,199/- along with interest and imposed penalty equal to the amount of service tax evaded i.e. Rs. 2,74,629/-. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the penalty imposed is excessive and arbitrary. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , there was no intention to defraud the Revenue, in fact the appellant had paid tax out of his pocket. 6. The service of architect became taxable w.e.f. 16.10.1998. On going through the records, it is seen that the appellant entered in to agreement with some of his client prior to 16.10.1998 and was under the bona fide belief that the receipt in respect of work undertaken prior to that date wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ultancy Pvt .- 2006 (4) STR 591 e) TNT India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore - 2007 (78) RLT 845 (CESTAT-Ban.) = 2007 (7) STR 142 (Tri.-Bang.) f) Jhunjari Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCEx., Kolkata - 2005 (186) ELT 57 (Tri.-Kolkata) g) Asst. CCEx. Vs. Krisna Poduval - 2006 (1) STR 185 (Ker.) h) Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa - 1978 (2) ELT J159 (SC) i) Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
