TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clear view that there was no wilful misstatement or suppression of facts in this case and there was reasonable cause for failure to deposit the service tax initially. Indeed, as noted above, having regard to the facts and circumstances, CESTAT vide its order dated 12.01.2009 set aside the penalty under Section 76 ibid and for the reasons alike, the Commissioner (Appeals) was fully justified in invoking Section 80 for waiving penalty under Section 78 ibid. Further, when the facts and circumstances do not indicate any wilful mis-statement or suppression, penalty under Section 78 ibid is not attracted. - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. ST/158/2009-CU[DB] - - - Dated:- 31-7-2015 - G Raghuram, President And R K Singh, Member (T), JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered the contention of both sides. It is relevant to briefly mention the facts of this case. The Show Cause Notice dated 20.06.2005 demanding service tax for the period 01.01.2002 to 09.09.2004 was issued to the respondent. The said Show Cause Notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 26.10.2005 in terms of which service tax demand of ₹ 17,85,071/- was confirmed and penalties of ₹ 500 each under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act,1994 were imposed. The Commissioner in its revisionary capacity revised the impugned Order-in-Original dated 26.10.2005 vide Revision Order dated 25.10.2007 in terms of which he enhanced the penalty under Section 76 from ₹ 500/- ₹ 17,85,071/-. The respondent filed appeal b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of Finance. CBEC vide its letter No.137/1/2005-CXA, dated 25.02.2005 replied that Indian Banks Association's representation had been rejected and that IBA should advise all the member Banks to pay service tax with interest at the earliest. It is seen that on receipt of the advice of the IBA, the respondent paid service tax and also the interest thereon. In the circumstances, we are of the clear view that there was no wilful misstatement or suppression of facts in this case and there was reasonable cause for failure to deposit the service tax initially. Indeed, as noted above, having regard to the facts and circumstances, CESTAT vide its order dated 12.01.2009 set aside the penalty under Section 76 ibid and for the reasons alike, the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
