TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to how and on what basis it had a bonafide belief that the impugned service did not fall under BAS. Bonafide belief is not a hallucinatory belief; it is a belief of a reasonable person working in appropriate environment. It can hardly be the respondent's case that it was guided by CESTAT judgment. Revenue's appeal allowed except that penalty under section 76 is set aside and penalty under section 78 is reduced to 25% of ₹ 5,82,025/- provided the respondent pays the entire amount of service tax alongwith interest and reduced (25% of ₹ 582025/-) penalty within 30 days of receipt of this order. It is clarified that amount already paid towards the impugned demand /interest penalty will be counted for this purpose. - Decided in f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue is now settled by CESTAT vide its judgment in case of Sanfin (Supra). He however raised the issue of time bar. There was no wilful mis-statement or suppression and therefore demand is time barred he argued. There was confusion regarding classification as is evident from the judgement in the case of Wings Group of Companies vs. CST, Bangalore-2008 (12) STR 287 (Tri.-Bang.) wherein it was held that the demand cannot be confirmed under Business Auxiliary Services. He also pleaded that if penalty under section 78 is upheld, penalty under section 76 should not be imposed and benefit of reduced (25%) penalty should be extended. 4. We have considered the contentions of both sides and perused the records. 5. It is the contention of Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in appropriate environment. It can hardly be the respondent's case that it was guided by CESTAT judgment in the case of Wings Group of Companies (Supra) as the judgment was reported in 2008 while period involved in this case is 1.7.2003 to 30.09.2004. However, it has been held by Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Pannu Property Dealers -2011 (24) STR 0173 (P H), and First Flight Couriers 2011 (22) STR 22 (P H) that even if technically penalties under sections 76 and 78 were not mutually exclusive, in case of imposition of penalty under section 78, penalty under section 76 may not be justified. We also find that Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Ahmadabad-III Vs. Ratnamani Metals and Tubes 2013 (296) ELT 327 (Guj.) has hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
