2015 (1) TMI 385

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hri N N Prabhudesai Superintendent (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: P S Pruthi: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the demand of Service Tax, recovery of interest and imposition of penalties under Section 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The facts are that the appellant manufacture castings. They paid service tax under the category of Goods Transpo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... paid by due dates, the penalties must be imposed. 5. Heard both sides and considered the submissions. 6. I find that there are substantial grounds for taking a lenient view in this matter. Firstly, the non-payment of service tax was detected from the books of accounts maintained by the appellant. This indicates that they could not have any mala fide intention to evade payment of service tax. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d reasonable cause for waiving penalty under Section 76. I see no justification for imposing penalty under Section 78 of the Act. Reliance is also placed on the CESTAT judgment in the case of Ramanasekar Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Chennai 2008 (9) STR 132 (Tri.-Chennai) affirmed by the Mad. High Court 2014 (33) STR J 220 (Mad.). The High Court upheld the decision that declaration of a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X