2016 (6) TMI 359

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at the Petitioner was required to pay excise duty - Held that:- there was no justification for the Settlement Commission to have imposed a penalty of ₹ 30,000 on the Petitioneras per advice of Service Tax Department. The Petitioner acted bona fide on the advice of the Service Tax Department and initially got itself registered with the said Department. Later, again on the insistence of the E .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Settlement Commission, New Delhi ('Settlement Commission') to the extent that it imposed a penalty of ₹ 30,000 on the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner was manufacturing ready mixed concrete on job work basis from April 2013 onwards. It is stated that as per the advice of the Service Tax Department, the Petitioner got itself registered and started paying service tax. On 8th January 2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . The excess payment of ₹ 2,94,215 was ordered to be refunded. The penalty amount and interest paid was asked to be adjusted against the interest amount qua the excise duty determined. 4. The Court is of the view that there was no justification for the Settlement Commission to have imposed a penalty of ₹ 30,000 on the Petitioner., The Petitioner acted bona fide on the advice of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X