9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri K.S. Naveen Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri V.P.C. Rao, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order] - This appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal No. 169/2008-ST. dated 29-4-2008 confirming the Service tax amount of Rs.7200/- on the taxable value of Rs. 1,44,000/- which has not been paid initially during the periods 1999 and 2000. There are penalties under various provisions, as under:- (a) Rs. 500/- under Section 75(a) of the Finance Act, 1994 for failure to make an application of registration under Section 69 of the said Act. (b) Rs. 100/- per day during which failure continued under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 for non-payment of service tax. This has been computed to several lakhs of rupees. (c) Rs. 1,000/- un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority to set aside the penalty, if the authority is satisfied about non-imposition of penalty amount. He relies on ruling of this Bench rendered in the case of M/s. Majestic Mobikes Pvt. Ltd. Ors. [Final Order Nos. 652-672/2008 dated 30-5-2008-2008 (11) S.T.R. 609 (Tribunal)] wherein this very position has been examined and in all cases, the penalty was set aside in view of bona fide being established. With regard to the imposition of penalty of Rs. 14,400/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, for suppressing the value of taxable service, the learned Counsel submits that there is no suppression of facts. Further he submits that in order to impose penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, the Original authority was required to obt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en reduced by the Original authority to Rs. 7,200/-. Therefore their bona fide belief has been established. In such circumstances, the Original authority has got powers not to impose penalty. Therefore the imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Act for non-payment of service tax is required to be set aside in the light of the Tribunal ruling rendered in the case of M/s. Majestic Mobikes Pvt. Ltd. Ors. (supra). The Tribunal has examined this very issue in cases where Commissioner had imposed very high penalty and in cases where the Original authority thought fit to drop the proceedings. The Tribunal noted the Board's Circular also to set aside the penalty. On this ground also I hold that the assessee has established their bona f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
