9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... collusion, willful mis-statement or suppression of fact, the demand invoking larger period itself was not sustainable – pre deposit waived. - S/183/2008 - 1031/2008 - Dated:- 15-12-2008 - Shri P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) Shri Venkatachalam, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M.K.A.K. Mohiddin, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order].- This is an application fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion cess, applicable interest and penalties on 31-10-07. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (A) found the liability to service tax of the appellants to be Rs.1,20,144/- as against Rs.1,29,887/- determined by the original authority. The Commissioner (A) vacated the penalty of Rs. 500/- imposed under Section 75A of the appellants and upheld the penalty of Rs.1000/- imposed under Section 77 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able also on the incentive amount the appellants received from its client namely HDFC Bank Ltd. The appellant's liability to tax on BAS was not known to the appellants when it was introduced in July, 2003; the liability to tax on the incentives received remains unsettled as the same was disputed in the cross objection filed by the appellants in the instant appeal filed by the Revenue. The ld. Coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice tax intimated to them by the department to be due, before issue of show cause notice. They paid a disputed amount of tax on the same services before adjudication. The transgressions committed by the appellants apparently occurred owing to their ignorance of statutory provisions. Relying on a judgment of the apex Court in Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2002 (14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
