9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise (Appeals-II), Bangalore. 2. I heard both sides. 3. First, I am taking up the party's appeal. The party M/s. C. Ahead Info Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (C. Ahead for short) was engaged in the business of software development and training to corporate, especially with respect to SAP. They were under the bona fide belief that training in relation to SAP was not taxable. They thought that there was an exemption for 'vocational training services'. However, the department investigated the issue. The party paid the entire amount of Service Tax along with interest in order to avoid litigation, though there was confusion with regard to their liability. The show cause notice was issued and Service Tax was demanded with interest. Penalties und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ong with the software development in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Nokia (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC - 2006 (1) SIR 233 (Tri.-Del.) wherein it is held that 'consulting engineer service' would also include training of personnel. In spite of the same, the entire amount demanded was paid during the investigation in order to avoid litigation. When there is no levy of Service Tax itself in terms of the above decision, the question of penalty does not arise. The entire demand of Service Tax requires to be set aside and the amount of Service Tax and interest already paid requires to be refunded. 3.2 Even assuming but not admitting that the activity was taxable, it is on record as noted in both the orders that there was no intention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edings under Section 77 and 78 should also be closed on payment of Service Tax along with interest before the issue of show cause notice, when there is no wilful suppression/fraud/collusion. On this ground also, the impugned order needs to be set aside. 3.5 When the assessee acts with the bona fide belief, there cannot be any intention to evade duty and penalty cannot be levied. The following case laws were relied on. (i) Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa - 1978 (2) ELT (J159) (SC) (ii) Akbar Badruddin Jiwani Vs. Collector - 1990 (47, ELT 161 (SC) (iii) Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. Collector - 1990 (47) ELT 9 (SC). 3.6 There is sufficient justification for waiver of penalties in terms of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
