TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid only on 31.3.2009, the appellant paid the entire liability on 04.2.2009. In fact, some amount was paid in excess. This shows that the appellant had reasonable cause for non-payment which is financial difficulty and the appellant being new to the service tax provisions, I consider that a lenient view as regards the penalty is warranted. Accordingly, in my opinion, this is a fit case for invoki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the departmental Anti-evasion staff to their premises on 29.1.2009, the appellant discharged their tax liability along with interest of ₹ 7,84,413/- which is in excess of their tax liability, for the period 01.4.2008 to 31.01.2009 after availing exemption limit of ₹ 10,00,000/- as applicable, on 04.2.2009. As the appellant had not discharged their tax liability till the visit m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy paid tax. In appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) has also upheld the imposition of penalty under various Sections of the Act. 3. Learned counsel on behalf the appellant submits that the delay in payment happened because of financial difficulty and also due to the fact that the appellant was new to the service tax provisions. He submits that the appellant paid the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.2009, the appellant paid the entire liability on 04.2.2009. In fact, some amount was paid in excess. This shows that the appellant had reasonable cause for non-payment which is financial difficulty and the appellant being new to the service tax provisions, I consider that a lenient view as regards the penalty is warranted. Accordingly, in my opinion, this is a fit case for invoking the provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
