9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Briefly, the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the business of as sole distributors for M/s Mitsubishi Company in Japan and registered under the category of maintenance or repair service with effect from 07/01/2005. The Audit Wing of Service Tax Commissionerate, Bangalore undertook the audit of records of the appellant during the period from October 2004 to September 2009 and during the audit, it was observed that the appellant has not discharged service tax on the invoices raised in respect of Annual Maintenance Contracts (AMC) on their customers during the period between October 2004 to January 2005. On being brought to the notice by the audit team, the appellant immediately discharged the service tax liabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 012 and the same was acknowledged by the Department. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, Revenue filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) with prayer to modify the order of the original authority and to impose penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 25.6.2014 allowed the appeal of the Revenue ex-parte and held that the lower authority had erred in not imposing mandatory penalty as per Section 78 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant has filed the present appeal. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was under bonafide belief that the services of An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entire service tax due along with interest before issue of show-cause notice. In support of this submission, he relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of South India Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. & S.T. reported in 2016-TIOL-2294-CESTAT-BANG wherein in the similar facts and circumstances, penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act was dropped in toto. He also relied upon the following case laws : (i) C.C.E. & S.T., LTU, Bangalore Vs. Adeco Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd. [2012 (26) S.T.R. 3 (Kar.)] (ii) Tamilnadu Housing Board vs. C.C.E., Madras [1994 (74) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.)] (iii) C.C.E., Bangalore-I vs. Geneva Fine Punch Enclosures Ltd. [2011 (267) E.L.T. 481 (Kar.)] (iv) Prince Thermal India P. Ltd. vs. c.C.E., N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
