TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service or not it and after the amendment of the law on 10.09.04, the service tax was being paid regularly by the appellant it cannot be held to be deliberate defiance - in fvaour of assessee. - ST/401/2011 - A/199/WZB/ADH/2011 - Dated:- 4-11-2011 - B S V Murthy, J. For Appellant: Shri Pravin Dhandharia, CA For Respondent: Shri R S Srova, AR Per: B S V Murthy: The appellant is providing service falling under the category of authorized service station for motor vehicle servicing or repairs and also business auxiliary service. The appellant has received certain amounts as incentives from various insurance companies such as Bajaj Allianz, IFFCO Tokyo. On the ground that the appellants should have paid service tax on the inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Ltd. Vs. CST [2010 (25) STT 6 (AHD-CESTAT)] 2. Haiku Motors (P) Ltd. Vs. CST Bangalore [2008 (17) STT 387 (Bang -CESTAT] 3. Namtech Electronic Devices Ltd. Vs. CST Bangalore [2010 (24) STT 222 (Bang - CESTAT] 4. P. Jani Co. Vs. CST Ahmedabad [2011 (30) STT 15 (Ahd. - CESTAT] 3. I find that appellant has already paid the full amount and interest as well as penalty under Section 78. Since the issue involved is only penalty under Section 76 and I have considered the facts and records and also heard both the sides, I find that the issue itself can be decided finally. Therefore the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and the appeal itself is taken up for decision. 4. The appellant is seeking waiver of penalty under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of service tax interest promptly. It was also submitted during the hearing that even the calculation of service tax liability and interest thereon was made by the appellants themselves and deposited without any special efforts by the officers of the Revenue. Further, the appellants also did not want to prolong the litigation and therefore paid 25% towards penalty also after the adjudication order was passed. In the case of Haiku Motors Pvt. Ltd. (referred supra) a view was taken that during the period there was confusion as regards category of service and liability of service tax and therefore penalty under Section 80 was not leviable. In that case Commissioner had reviewed the order and imposed penalties. In the case of P. Jani Co. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
