2009 (9) TMI 33

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ervice tax as on 31.3.2005 for the earlier period, they can not claim that they ware not aware of the liability for the subsequent months – penalty set aside by the commissioner (Appeals) is incorrect therefore penalty restored for the period April 2005, June 2005 and August 2005.
Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) Mr. S.Gautam, SDR for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. [Order per M. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 10.05 as against the due date of 5.7.05 and the tax for August, 2005 was paid on 7.10.05 as against the due date of 5.8.05. The original authority imposed the penalty for Rs.35,116/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) has invoked the provisions under section 80 and held that they have shown reasonable cause for non-deposit of service tax before the stipulated date and are entitled for waiver of penalty. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... legal position may be justified. However, the same is justified only in so far as the same relates to delayed payment of tax relating to the period October, 2004 to January, 2005. Having paid the service tax on 31.3.05, I am unable to appreciate how they were not aware of the liability for the subsequent months namely April, June and August, 2005, and how they can entertain any doubt about the lia .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X