Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 81 - CESTAT NEW DELHILevy of Penalty - Business Auxiliary Service - empanelment fees recovered from the empanelled venders as commission shown under the head “rebate” - issue of liability of the appellant stands already decided as against the appellant and that the appellant has already deposited the amount of demand alongwith the amount of interest - HELD THAT:- It is a fit case of waiver of penalties proposed under Section 76, 77 & 78 of the Act ibid, in terms of Section 80 of the Finance Act. 1994 and even after non existence of the Section 80, it is found that being a Government defence organisation no malafide intention can be attributed to the omissions which have occurred on the part of the noticee. The Hon’ble Tribunal in similar circumstances has waived the penalties in terms of Section 80 of the Act ibid. - reliance can be placed in the case of NAGAR NIGAM, KOTA VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-I [2009 (12) TMI 457 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JALANDHAR VERSUS M/S GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM [2012 (8) TMI 499 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] and ANDHRA PRADESH TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD [2012 (5) TMI 346 - CESTAT, BANGALORE]. There are no reason to differ from the said findings specifically when in the present appeal also the appellant has deposited the entire amount of demand confirmed and the amount of interest imposed - the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is modified by setting aside the order of imposing penalty upon the appellant. Appeal allowed in part.
|