9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olved, I take up the appeal for disposal. 3. Heard both sides and perused the record. 4. The relevant facts arise for consideration is that investigation was carried out in the offices of the appellant herein and it was noticed that the appellant has not discharged service tax liability on the commission amount reimbursed by Vodafone to them. On being pointed out, the appellant herein, in the year 2008 discharged the entire service tax liability along with interest. Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 20.7.2011 came to be issued to the appellant for appropriating such amount paid by him along with interest and also seeking to impose penalties under various sections of Finance Act, 1994. The adjudicating authority, after confirming the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s overrides the effect of Section 76, 77 and 78. In order to avail the benefit of Section 80, it is necessary for the service provider to make out a case to that effect by producing sufficient evidence/ reasons in the support of reasonable cause. I find that service provider has obtained service tax number in time and has been regularly filing service tax returns. Service provider complied with all summons and furnished all the information and explanations as and when asked for. Service provider fully co-operated in inquiry proceedings. Further all the differential service tax amounts have been paid by them before Oct, 2008. Further, for the period 2007-08 they already paid service tax with due date. I find that short payment was on account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has taken the view that the Commissioner was not justified in reviewing the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner as the Deputy Commissioner has exercised the discretion conferred on him. Under these circumstances, we are view that the questions formulated in these Review Petitions would not arise out of the order passed by the Commissioner. As noticed by us earlier, the Deputy Commissioner has proceeded to levy the penalty in exercise of the discretion conferred on him under Sec. 80 of the Act and not on an interpretation of Sec. 76 of the Act, which mandates the levying of penalty of Rs. 100/- per every day of delay in filing the returns as contended by Sri Veerendra Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 7. It is also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
