TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 7,14,996/- in the Adjudication proceedings. The differential tax was only a reconciliation of accounts maintained by the appellant. Appellant is a co-operative bank. In view of the above facts this case is not fit for imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Decided in faovur of assessee. - Appeal No. ST/11047/2014 - ORDER NO. A/12274/2014 - Dated:- 12-12-2014 - H. K. Thakur, Member (T),J. For the Appellant : Shri Jigar Shah, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Gobind Jha, AR ORDER This appeal has been filed by the appellant with respect to OIA No. AHM-SVTAX-000-APP-263-13-14 dated 12.12.2013. 2. Shri Jigar Shah (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f of the Revenue defended the order passed by the lower authorities and argued that penalties have been correctly imposed upon the appellant under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is imposable upon the appellant when the entire amount of service tax along with interest was paid before the issue of show cause notice. It is observed that first appellate authority has given following findings in Para 15 while setting aside the penalties imposed upon the appellant under Section 77 and 77 of Finance Act, 1994 :- 15. Looking to the above circumstances, I would like to discuss the pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le, then a view can not be entertained that the facts will justify imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Duty demanded in the show cause notice was ₹ 11,10,965/- but was confirmed only to the extent of ₹ 7,14,996/- in the Adjudication proceedings. The differential tax was only a reconciliation of accounts maintained by the appellant. Appellant is a co-operative bank. In view of the above facts and the relied upon case laws this case is not fit for imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly appeal filed by the appellant is required to be allowed. 5. Appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. (Operative part of the order pronounced in the Court) - - TaxTMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
