Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2016 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 307 - AT - Service TaxLiability to pay penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - where service tax and interest has been paid - revenue neutral exercise - Held that:- there cannot be any wilful intention to evade service tax because had the appellant knew that they are liable to pay, then they would have paid and claimed cenvat credit being manufacturer and it would have been a revenue neutral situation. Also the appellant paid the service tax - Therefore by relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dineshchandra R. Agarwal Infracon Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2009 (10) TMI 395 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD], HP State Forest Corpn. Ltd. vs. CCE, Chandigarh [2008 (7) TMI 350 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], Samtel Colour Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur [2007 (8) TMI 336 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], Marudhamalai Murugan Industries (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Salem [2009 (1) TMI 73 - CESTAT, CHENNAI], once the service tax and interest are paid, no penalty can be imposed. Invokation of extended period of limitation - Intention to evade payment of Service tax - Held that:- when the appellant can take credit and utilize it further for the payment of tax, naturally they would not get any benefit by not paying such a tax and attract penal provisions of the law, so, there can not be any intention to evade tax. Therefore, as the appellant peis not disputing the liability to tax and they have paid the service tax along with interest uptodate, therefore extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. - Decided in favour of appellant
|