TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oning would be applicable for penalties under Section 78. Having acknowledged that the issue involved in this case is the interpretation of the law, I find that upholding penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 seems to be incorrect. - issue is of interpretation of law of the imposition of Service Tax on renting of immovable properties, by invoking the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. I set aside the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ST/11717/2013-SM - ORDER No.A/11162/2014 - Dated:- 27-6-2014 - H K Thakur,J. For The Appellant : Shri Gaurav K Mehta For The Respondent : Shri J Nair This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.45/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within six months from the date of enactment of the Finance Bill 2012 on 28.05.2012. On verification adjudicating authority found that the appellants had paid interest of ₹ 5,307/- on 27.06.2012 as per their own calculations against actual interest of ₹ 13,978/- recoverable from them under Section 75. The appellant also deposited the short-paid interest ₹ 8,671/- on 12.04.2013 i.e. after the expiry of six months from 28.05.2012. On the above facts the Order-in-Original passed by the adjudicating authority stood upheld vide impugned Order-in-Appeal. The present appeal is only for setting aside of penalties imposed on appellants under Sections 77 and 78. 3. Shri Gaurav Mehta, Ld. Chartered Accountant for the appellants a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut contesting service tax liability. The appellant, being a statutory body, had no intent to evade payment of service tax, and consequently even a token penalty is not called for in the matter. He cited the following case laws: (i) BSNL Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalore [2008 (9) STR 499 (Tri. Bang.)]; and (ii) Surat Municipal Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Surat [2006 (4) STR 0044 (Tri. Del.)] = 2006-TIOL-533-CESTAT-DEL 4. On the other hand, Shri Jitendra Nair, Ld. A.R. for the Revenue argued that the impugned Order-in-Appeal has been correctly passed as the service tax and interest was not paid within six months under Section 80(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxable service brought under statute, there was dispute and the matter has not yet reached finality as the appeal is pending before the Honble Apex Court in the case of Home Sales Retail India Ltd. I also find that the first appellate authority has recorded in impugned order as an issue involving question of interpretation of the provision of the law, I find that ld. counsel is right in contending that if this is a question of interpretation for setting aside penalties under Sections 76 77, the same reasoning would be applicable for penalties under Section 78. Having acknowledged that the issue involved in this case is the interpretation of the law, I find that upholding penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 seems to be inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
