9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re filing due returns. It is seen that though they were discharging their service tax liability in respect of various clients on the basis of the gross value received by them, in respect of one client, the service tax was being discharged only on the commission received by them. According to the appellant, whereas their client were paying their service tax amount on the full value, one of them was of the view that service tax is not liable on the full value of the services but only on the commission so received by them. Accordingly, the said client was paying service tax to the appellant, which was admittedly being deposited with the jurisdictional central excise authority. 2. Subsequently, as a result of the investigations, the said fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en dealt with in detail hereinabove, that there was definitely a reasonable cause because they were under bonafide belief that service tax was not payable under Rule 6(1) ibid, until received from the recipient of services. Interpretation of statutory provisions, which may differ from person to person, is a just and reasonable cause to do an act to mention here that neither is there any iota of evidence of contumacious act, nor deliberate violation of law on the part of the Noticee. Therefore, the Noticee is entitled for the protection of Section 80 of the Act, for that this section in its axiomatic approach protects those who are honest and law abiding taxpayers and debars those who have either no respect or have scant respect of the law o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s client paid him service tax as invoiced, he had deposited the same. In our view, appellant herein has made out a reasonable cause for invocation of provisions of section 80 of Finance Act 1994. We are also fortified in our views by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in case of Motor World and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bonny Auto, and Jindal Saw Ltd. " 5. To the similar effect is another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Industrial Security Associates vs. CCE 2013 (31) STR 489 (Tri-Del). 6. In view of above we set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner and restore the original order of the adjudicating authority as regards penalty. Appeal is allowed in above terms. [Operative part of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
