TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has to be ascertained therefore fact of each judgments varies from the fact of the present case, hence in my view as per facts of the present case these judgments are not applicable. As per my above discussion, I find that appellant’s case is covered by provision of Section 73(3) and also under Section 80 of the Finance Act, accordingly penalty is set aside, service tax along with interest admittedly paid by the appellant is maintained. Appeal is allowed in the above terms - APPEAL NO. ST/86367/13 - ORDER NO. A/93020/16/SMB - Dated:- 22-9-2016 - Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (J) Shri. Shrenik Gandhi, C.A. for the Appellants Shri. S.R. Nair, Examiner(A.R.) for the Respondent Order This appeal is directed against Order-in- App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the client . This service is exempted under Notification No. 8/2005-ST. The appellant was of bonafide belief that their services were exempted under said notification therefore they have not paid any service tax. He submits that in October, 2011 when auditor pointed out that the services are taxable, appellant without contest, paid entire service tax alongwith interest in November, 2011 for the period January to March, 2009, the appellant also submitted the letter dated 8th November, 2011 regarding the details of payment of service tax and interest and also informed that issue may be settled under Section 80/73(3) of Finance Act. He submits that as per the payment of service tax with interest and intimation thereof to the department reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turn in respect of services nor informed department about their activity of repair of moulds, there is suppression of facts accordingly, appellant has not made out the case of showing reasonable cause for nonpayment of service tax invoking Section 80. He placed reliance on following judgments: (a) C.C.E. S.T. Kolhapur Commissionerate Vs. Honai Constructions[2016(42)S.T.R. 244(Bom)] (b) Dhandayuthapani Canteen Vs. CESTAT, Channai[2015(39)S.T.R. 386(Mad.)] (c) K. Madhav Kamath Brother Co. Vs Commr. Of C. Ex. Mangalore[2015(38) S.T.R. 249(Tri. Bang.)] 3. I have carefully considered submissions made by both sides and perused records. 4. I find that though the appellant has not contested the service tax liability but the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case is clearly covers under Section 73(3). I have gone through judgments relied upon by both sides. Since the fact for imposition of penalty under Section 78 or to deal the case under provisions of Section 73(3) facts of individual case has to be ascertained therefore fact of each judgments varies from the fact of the present case, hence in my view as per facts of the present case these judgments are not applicable. As per my above discussion, I find that appellant s case is covered by provision of Section 73(3) and also under Section 80 of the Finance Act, accordingly penalty is set aside, service tax along with interest admittedly paid by the appellant is maintained. Appeal is allowed in the above terms. (Dictated in Court) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
