TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act – Held that appellants were under bona fide doubt regarding their activity, was a reasonable cause on their part not to depositing the service tax in the penalties under Section 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, not imposable. - ST/85/2008 - A /552/2009-WZB/C-IV/SMB - Dated:- 17-9-2009 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) Shri M.P. Joshi, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri N.A. Sayyed, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal is preferred by the appellants against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III, whereby (a) imposing a penalty of Rs. 100/- per day from the date of payable fill the date actual payment in terms of Section 76 of the Finance Act 1994 for failure to pay service tax on the taxabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants filed a reply and stated that they had not undertaken any other services except the procurement of order and transfer it to T.D. Power System Pvt. Ltd., and received commission of Rs. 14,23,125/- and further stated that the service tax along with interest have already been paid. Moreover, the appellants further submitted that they had not undertaken any business activity relating to the service tax prior to the period July 2004 and they applied for the service tax registration in the year 2003 but did not receive any service tax registration and the penalties were imposed on the appellants. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before me. 6. The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submit that the appellants have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urity, Vigilance Allied Services v. CST, Bangalore , 2009 (15) S.T.R. 157 (Tri.-Bang.) in support of his contention. 9. On the other hand, the Ld. JDR for the Revenue submits that the appellant is such a big firm they cannot take the plea of bona fide belief that they were in the bona fide belief that the appellant is not covered under the category of Business Auxiliary Services . He further submits that the appellant has suppressed the facts from the department and the Commissioner has rightly imposed the penalty on the appellant. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on Mett Macdonald Ltd., CCE, Jaipur, 2006 (2) S.T.R. 524 (Tri.-Del.) = 2001 (134) E.L.T. 799 (Tri..-Del.) wherein it was held that the contentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
