9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med the demand of Rs. 1,76,177/- u/s.73 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994, and demanded interest u/s.75 and imposed penalty u/s.77 (1a) and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- u/s.77(2) and penalty of Rs. 3,42,092/- u/s.78 and appropriated Rs. 1,90,270/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA No.132/2014 dated 13.10.2014 rejected the appeal and upheld the Order-In-Original. The appellant assessee has now appealed before this Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel, Shri M.N.Bharathi, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant assessee submits that on an enquiry from the Anti Evasion, Tiruchirapalli, the appellant immediately got itself register ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice. He vehemently argued that the revenue should not suffer for an act of gross negligence and suppression with malafide intent on the part of the appellants in collecting the service tax. He further submits that the decision pertaining to the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Patna Vs. Advantage Media Consultant (supra) cited by the appellant is not relevant as the assesse therein collected service tax on the commission amount wherever the service was rendered to private parties and failed to collect service tax from Government agencies like Indian Railways. Accordingly, he prays that the appeal should be rejected and the OIA should be upheld. 5. Heard both sides and on perusal of records, I find that the appellant asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such information, shall not serve any notice under subsection (1) in respect of the amount so paid and proceedings in respect of the said amount of service tax shall be deemed to have been concluded: 5 Inserted (w.e.f. 8.04.2011) by s.74 of the Finance Act, 2011(8 of 2011) 6 Substituted w.e.f. 28.5.2012 by the Finance Act, 2012 Provided that the Central Excise Officer may determine the amount of service tax, if any, due from such person, which in his opinion remains to be paid by such person and shall proceed to recover such amount in the manner specified in sub-section (1). Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section and section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It would not be out of place to mention that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd vs State of Uttar Pradesh, (1979) 118 ITR 326 (SC) observed that it is well settled law that "reasonable cause" can be reasonably said to be a cause which prevents a man of average intelligence and ordinary prudence acting under normal circumstances without negligence or inaction or want of bonafide. 7. I also find that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Cus., Patna vs Advantage Media Consultant cited (supra) held that where service tax has not been collected for services rendered, Cum-tax value to be adopted. This principle has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner vs Advant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
