9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber, 2004, not filed the ST-3 returns and not paid service tax amounting to Rs. 6,43,420. Subsequently, the appellant paid the said service tax along with interest of Rs. 1,19,367 on 14-6-2005. A show-cause notice dated 16-12-2005 was issued and the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and appropriated the service tax and interest already paid, imposed penalties of (i) Rs. 100 per day under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 (ii) Rs. 1,000 under section 77 ibid and (iii) Rs. 6,43,420 under section 78 ibid. 2. Aggrieved by such an adjudication order, appellant preferred an appeal to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order has upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. Aggrieve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant period. He would submit that both the lower authorities have correctly come to the conclusion that the penalty imposed is correct. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. Since the appellant in this case is only challenging the imposition of penalties on them under the provisions of sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, the impugned order to the extent it confirms the amount of service tax and interest leviable therein and appropriate amounts already paid by the appellants is upheld. As regards penalty, I find from the records that the Manager (Accounts) of the appellant company in his statement dated 10-6-2005 and 5-9-2005 stated that they were not aware of the provisions of the service tax levy as regards the services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had discharged the entire service tax liability as soon as they were intimated by the authorities on 14-6-2005 itself. It is undisputed that the show-cause notice is issued on 16-12-2005. Provisions of section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 are clearly applicable in this case. I find that the Division Bench in the case of Tidewater Shipping (P.) Ltd. (supra) on identical set of facts held in favour of assessee. I may produce the ratio of the same : "On a very careful consideration of the entire issue, we find that in respect of each of the cases, due to bona fide belief, the appellants did not discharge the service tax liability in time. But, as soon as the lapse was pointed out by the departmental authorities, they remitted the service ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
