9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tified in holding that provisions of Section 73(3) are not applicable – therefore he is not justified in upholding the OIO imposing penalties on appellant - it is very clear that the provisions of Section 73(3) would be squarely applicable and the Revenue ought not to have proceeded against the appellants by way of issue of show cause notice - ST/390/2008 - 1238/2008 - Dated:- 7-10-2008 - Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice. The Original authority confirmed the demand along with interest. Further he imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act and a penalty of Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 of the Act. It is seen that even before the issue of show cause notice, the appellants had paid the service tax as well as interest. The amounts paid were appropriated by the Original authority. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter to the appellants for certain details in respect of commission paid by the commission agents based abroad for procurement of export obligation. Consequent to the said letter, the appellants calculated their service tax liability and interest and paid the total amount of Rs. 2,32,478/- on 14-7-2006. In other words, within a month from the Superintendent's letter, the appellants discharged the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4) does not arise at all. In any case, the appellants in their letter dated 23-8-2006 had clearly informed the Department about their bona fide belief regarding the tax liability. In view of the above facts, in my view, it is very clear that the provisions of Section 73(3) would be squarely applicable and the Revenue ought not to have proceeded against the appellants by way of issue of show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
