9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ission basis - bona fide belief that obligation under Service Tax are to be complied by Hindustan Zinc Ltd. - no intention to evade payment of tax and tax deposited voluntarily with interest before issuance of SCN - penalty of equal amount of tax u/s 76 is not warranted - ST/347/2008-SM(BR) - 1568/2008-SM(BR)(PB), - Dated:- 14-11-2008 - Shri P.K. Das, Member (J) Shri S.S. Dabas, Advocate f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued by the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise proposing demand of tax and penalties. By adjudication order dated 20.3.2006 the adjudicating authority imposed penalty of Rs. 200/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rs.100/- under Section 76 of the said Act. The Commissioner of Central Excise revised the adjudication order and by Revised order dated 19.3.2008 imposed penalty of equal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n depositing the tax and, therefore, penalty of equal amount of tax was rightly imposed by the Commissioner. 4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record it is seen from the reply to the show cause notice dated 21st July, 2005, it was contended by the appellant that Para 7.1 of the agreement with Hindustan Zinc Ltd. indicate service tax as applicable will be paid by Hindustan Zinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act is not warranted. Further, it is apparent on the face of the record that the appellant failed to pay the tax in bona fide belief. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case Sunitha Shetty, reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 404 (Kar.) = 2004 (174) E.L.T. 313 (Kar.) held that levy of penalty is discretionary power and the Dy. Commissioner can exercise his discretion in dropping the penalty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
