Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 393 - AT - Service TaxJurisdiction of Commissioner - Commissioner under his revisionary power has issued SCN, imposing penalty, by invoking extended period of limitation - Penalty u/s 76, 77 and 78 of FA - payment of service tax with Interest was made on being pointed out - no intent to evade - Held that:- This issue was considered by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Motor World [2012 (6) TMI 69 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] wherein the Hon’ble High Court after considering the scope of revision power of the Commissioner to impose penalty which was dropped by the original authority in exercise of his discretion under Section 80 has finally held that Revisional authority had no jurisdiction to interfere with the said orders as the authority held that there was sufficient cause for non-payment of duty. Therefore, the order passed by the revisionary authority is erroneous and calls for interference. Tribunal in the case of S-Mac Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore [2016 (8) TMI 15 - CESTAT BANGALORE], after noting the fact that the service tax along with interest has been voluntarily paid by the appellant before issuance of show-cause notice, has set aside the penalty imposed by Revisionary Authority under Sections 76 to 78. Imposing penalty by exercising revisionary power is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|