TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or no imposition of penalty under Section 76 of Finance Act when penalty has been imposed under Section 78, penalty under both the Sections need not be imposed. Therefore penalty under Section 76 in my opinion can be waived in this case - However, penalty u/s 78 is reduced - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - ST/2403/2010-SM - - - Dated:- 5-3-2015 - B S V Murthy, Member (T),J. For the Appellant : Mr B V Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr Mohd Yusuf, AR ORDER Per: B S V Murthy: Service Tax of ₹ 4,12,831/- Rupees Four lakhs Twelve Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty One only) with interest on royalty services paid by the appellant for the period from 18.04.2006 to 31.03.2009 has been appropriated and penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dropped somewhere in 2008. He submits that the agreements for technical know-how as well as royalty were in the knowledge of the department and therefore suppression could not have been invoked in this case. He relies upon several decisions to submit that where tax has been paid before issue of show-cause notice with interest, no penalty need be imposed. 2. Learned AR would submit that penalty has been rightly imposed in this case and three years after 18.04.2006 the appellant had not paid the tax. The dispute in the Indian National Ship Owners Association case was relating to the period prior to 18.04.2006 and there could not have been any doubt after 18.04.2006. 3. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. Learned c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that case the Hon'ble High Court observed that there was a bona fide doubt about service tax liability. Hon'ble High Court observed that as per the Notification dated 09.07.2001, the consultation provided in relation to the research projects funded by the Government no service tax is payable. Therefore there were doubts about the correct application of the exemption notification and therefore a view was taken that provisions of Section 80 could have been invoked. 5. The next decision relied upon is in the case of Cauvery Travel Links Vs. CST, Bangalore [2011 (21) S.T.R. 207 (Tri.-Bang.)] wherein the penalty was waived by invoking the provisions of Section 80 of Finance Act 1994. In that case the appellant was advised to wait and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
