TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08. Appeal No.ST/231/08 is filed by the Revenue while appeal No.ST/241 /08 is filed by the assessee. Since the issue involved in this case is arising out of the very same order-in-appeal, both the appeals are disposed by a common order. 2. The relevant facts of the case are as under:- The appellant was issued a show cause notice for non-payment of Service Tax (including cess) of Rs.3,43,533/- leviable on manpower recruitment and supply agency service rendered to M/s. ITC Hotel Windsor Sheraton and Towers, Bangalore for the period from June, 2005 to December, 2006. The adjudicating authority vide the impugned order held that Service Tax on the said services rendered by an individual is payable only with effect from 1-5-2006 and accordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pheld by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) needs to be set aside. It is his sub mission that they are not challenging the demand of Service Tax as they have already paid the Service Tax and the interest thereof. It is his submission that the adjudicating authority and ld. Commissioner (Appeals) have not considered the submission made by the appellant as to he being an individual, was not aware of the provisions of the Service Tax and hence, should invoke the provisions of Section 80 for setting aside the penalty imposed under various sections. 4. Ld. DR would submit that the fact that appellant has discharged the Service Tax after the same was noticed by the departmental officers is itself enough for imposition of penalty on the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice was issued to the appellant on 27-4-2007. Appellant/assessee while replying to the show sause notice has been taking a stand that he being an individual was not aware of the provisions of the Service Tax law and was not well-versed. He also put the plea before the lower authorities that immediately after the visit of the departmental officers, he paid the duty along with interest. I find strong force in the contentions of the ld. Counsel of the appellant. The appellant/assessee being an individual and engaged in supply of manpower may not be well-versed with the provisions of the Service Tax Act (sic) and more so when the services came into Service Tax net from 1-5-2006. In view of this, I find that the infraction of the appellant/as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
