9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of January and February 2008, audit was conducted from the records maintained by the appellant and during the audit, the auditors pointed out that during April 2006 to June 2006, the appellant paid advances to transporters for carrying raw material from Jodhpur to their factory and they failed to pay service tax against such advances paid amounting to Rs. 6,53,199/-. The appellant explained to the auditor that the part payment of transportation was made by the supplier at the place of dispatch and the remaining payment was made by the appellant when the goods were received by them at their factory and the appellant also furnished the details of all these transactions. Further, the appellant submitted that they were under the impression tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that during the month from April to June 2006, the supplier of the raw material paid part of the freight to the transporters and the appellant was under the reasonable belief that the person who pays the freight is liable to pay the service tax on such amount and that is why they did not pay the service tax on the part paid by the supplier to the transporter, but when the audit party pointed out, then they enquired from the suppliers and after clarification, they decided to pay it off, but due to severe financial crunch they were constrained to close down the factory w.e.f. 10.2.2008 and had also applied for waiver of dues before BIFR. He also submitted that finally they paid the service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel for the appellant is that there cannot be any wilful intention to evade because had the appellant knew that they are liable to pay, then they would have paid and claimed cenvat credit being manufacturer and it would have been a revenue neutral situation. It is a fact that subsequently the appellant paid the service tax amounting to Rs. 79,952/- and interest amounting to Rs. 30,269/-. The appellant also brought on record the fact that due to financial crunch, they closed the factory w.e.f. 10.2.2008 and approached the BIFR for waiver of payment. The learned counsel submits that it was a bona fide mistake on the part of the appellant and also relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the following cases in support of his contention that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
