TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had changed their opinion and sought to file the present Appeal against the imposition of penalty - Applicant is a public sector undertaking having full-fledged legal department and they could not properly analyze and understand the simple order of the ld. Commissioner imposing penalty, resulting into the bona fide mistake, in not filing the present Appeal - how a mere change of opinion could be construed as a sufficient cause warranting condonation of delay - Condonation denied. - APPEAL NO.ST/A/118/2011 - ORDER NO.FO/A/71142/2013 - Dated:- 13-11-2013 - DR. D.M.MISRA AND DR. I.P.LAL, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI A.K.DAS, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI S.P.PAL, A.R. (APPRAISER) JUDGEMENT Per Dr. D.M. Misra; This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Tribunal. 3. Per contra, ld. AR for the Revenue has submitted that initially, the demand was issued for recovery of Service Tax of Rs.2,02,99,562/- and Education Cess of Rs.3,48,017/- for the period from 01.07.2003 to 31.03.2006. Ld. Commissioner after considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the Applicant reduced the total Service Tax Demand to Rs.1,77,48,913/-. Besides, he has imposed penalty of equal amount. He has appropriated the Service Tax amounting to Rs.1,76,28,840/- and Education Cess amounting to Rs.3,52,578/- already paid by them. The impugned Order was communicated in time and there was a specific direction for appropriation of the service tax and also imposition of penalty. But, the Applicant chose not to file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that since the service tax with interest had been discharged, they were under the impression that no penalty was imposable/payable by them. We are not impressed with the said argument on the simple reason that the Applicant is a public sector undertaking having full-fledged legal department and they could not properly analyze and understand the simple order of the ld. Commissioner imposing penalty, resulting into the bona fide mistake, in not filing the present Appeal. Besides, we find that the Applicant had also filed a cross objection to the appeal (ST-18/09) filed by the Revenue against the same impugned Order before this Tribunal, as per direction of Review Order dated 12.12.2008. Hence, the plea that they were not able to analyze the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
