TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nother [2014 (1) TMI 459 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - it is held that the Revenue has necessary jurisdiction under Section 73 of the Finance Act, particularly with reference to the limitation prescribed thereunder and the show cause notice issued on the second respondent/assessee is valid. However, the penalty imposed on the second respondent/assessee stands deleted and the prayer for cancelling the levy of interest stands rejected - Decided partly in favour of Revenue. - C. M. A. No. 1322 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 4-9-2014 - R. Sudhakar And G. M. Akbar Ali,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Ravi Anantha Padmanabhan Standing Counsel For the Respondents : Mr. T. Ramesh for Mr. S. Jaikumar for 2nd respondent JUDGMENT (Delivered by R. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The issue raised in this appeal is no longer res integra in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and another (Judgment dated 31.10.2013 made in C.M.A.Nos.1308 of 2009 and batch cases), wherein the Division Bench confirmed the demand made by the department, while deleting the penalty imposed on the assessee. The operative portion of the said decision reads as under: 46. Learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that Section 71A is only a machinery section; as such, the amended provision of Section 73 of the Act could not be taken to confer them the jurisdiction to pass orders. We do not agree with the submissions made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e stated only to be rejected. 48. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that Section 80 of the Act provides for penalty not to be imposed in certain cases. It states that notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of Section 76, Section 77 and first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 78 of the Act, no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure referred to in the said provisions if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. It is further submitted that in terms of Section 78 of the Act, penalty can be imposed for suppression of facts or fraud or collusion or wilful mis-statement or contravention of any of the provisions of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, or the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evasion to pay tax or not to comply with the provisions of the Act. As may be seen from the preceding paragraphs, the assessees appeared to have been under the bona fide belief that they are not liable to pay Service Tax and in support of their claim, they relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of LAGHU UDYOG BHARATI (Supra), which was affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court. Therefore, we are inclined to accept the case of the assessees and hold that there was no justification for imposition of penalty, especially when there was no allegation of fraud, mis-representation, etc., Accordingly, the penalty imposed on the respondents/assesees shall stand deleted. 51. However, as far as the interest levied under Section 75 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
