TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itigation policy. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the matter was not free from doubt and disputed by the appellant on interpretation during the impugned period. It is also to be noted that appellants are a Public Sector Undertaking and that they have accepted their tax liability after 1.7.2012, after introduction of negative list and as of date, the tax liability after 1.7.2012 has been discharged by them with interest, albeit, belatedly. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 is not called for and is hereby set aside. Levy of penalty for non filing of return - Their plea of bonafide belief of not requiring to apply for registration and non-filing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r came up for hearing, learned advocate Ms.Sridevi submitted that they are not disputing the tax liability and have paid up the tax demand with interest and that appellants are before this forum only with regard to penalties imposed on the appellant under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. She also pointed out that the very same issue had been in agitation for the earlier period April 2006 to March 2010, and that the matter had been decided in their favour by original authority and also upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA No.149/2011 dt. 12.12.2011 holding that services received would fall under only Technical Inspection and Certification Services , however, since the service is in relation to inspection and certification of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the earlier period, it was held that services availed were not in the nature of 'Club or Association Service' but were only 'Technical Inspection and Certification Services'. No doubt, OIA dt. 12.12.2011 upholding such a view of the original authority was not appealed by the department on monetary grounds as per litigation policy. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the matter was not free from doubt and disputed by the appellant on interpretation during the impugned period. It is also to be noted that appellants are a Public Sector Undertaking and that they have accepted their tax liability after 1.7.2012, after introduction of negative list and as of date, the tax liability after 1.7.2012 has been discharged by them wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
