9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Representative ORDER Per : Mr. P. M. Saleem Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the Commissioner by the impugned order has set-aside the decision of the adjudicating authority waiving penalties under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. He contends that the original adjudicating authority (Joint Commissioner) has given a detailed reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been proposed in the instant case. The assessee pleaded that due to genuine belief that service to Government Agencies is non taxable they have not collected service tax and filed ST-3 return accordingly. Thus, no penalties are imposable. I find substance in their argument. It is fact that the assessee has not collect ed service tax on the service provided to the Government Agencies. From the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the statute, penalty was not imposable. While passing the above decision, the Hon'ble Tribunal has considered ruling of Apex Court in the case of M/s Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa (1978 (2) E.L.T.-J159). In the said judgement, the Apex Court has held that an order imposing penalty for failure to carry out the statutory obligation was the result of quasi-criminal proceedings and that penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the original adjudicating authority had not waived the penalties on the said ground but on facts of the case. Hence, we find that there is infirmity in the decision of the Commissioner in the impugned order. Further, it is also observed that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Motor World (supra) has held that when the assessing authority, in its discretion has held that no pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
