TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposited the Service Tax after being pointed out by the department and thus they intentionally suppressed the facts, thus liable for the penalty. - held that:- The appellant could not pay Service Tax only on the bona fide belief that they have to pay Service Tax after completion of the entire service not on the basis of account payment received in several lots. The department could not bring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 4,51,758/- (Rupees Four Lakh Fifty One Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Eight only). The contention of the applicant is that they have already paid the Service Tax and interest thereon before the issuance of show cause notice. 2. After hearing both the sides I find that appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore with the consent of both the sides and after waiving the requireme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the Service Tax and interest already paid by them. The contention is that there is no intention to evade Service Tax or suppression or wilful misstatement in this case and they could not pay Service Tax in time only due to bona fide belief. Therefore equal amount of penalty under Section 78 cannot be imposed since the department failed to bring out any suppression, wilful misstatement on their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved is not the issue in this case. The only issue involved in this case is imposition of equal amount of penalty under Section 78. The allegation of the department is that the appellant deposited the Service Tax after being pointed out by the department and thus they intentionally suppressed the facts, thus liable for the penalty. I agree with the contention of the applicant that show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
