2009 (1) TMI 68

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s ignorance - M/s. BSNL also had not advised of the service tax liability nor paid the tax – moreover, SCN had not alleged willful misstatement or suppression of facts and had not invoked larger period u/s 73 – hence demand and penalty are not sustainable - S/207/2006 - 32 of 2009 - Dated:- 5-1-2009 - Shri P. Karthikeyan, Member (Technical) None for the Appellant Shri R.P. Meena, SDR fo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2001. Adjudicating a show-cause notice issued to the appellant the original authority confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs.9,080/- towards service rendered during the material period along with applicable interest u/s 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act). The original authority imposed a penalty of Rs.500/- u/s 75A, Rs.1,000/- u/s 77 and equal amount of penalty u/s 76 of the Act. In the impu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d the tax liability redetermined as per Explanation-II to Section 67 of the Act. 2. Nobody is present representing the appellant. The learned SDR appearing for the Revenue does not contest the claim that the show-cause notice had not alleged willful suppression of fact etc. and had not invoked larger period u/s 73 of the Act. 3. I have carefully considered the facts of the case. The appel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X