TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 675X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale of the goods exported by them were exempted - Held that: - The department has not provided any evidence to prove any willful suppression and misstatement with an ‘intention to evade' payment of service tax on the part of the appellant. The facts on record indicate that there has been a bonafide mistake on the part of the appellant to treat the taxable services as exempted services - penalty u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. DR. 3. The Ld. Advocate, Shri B.L. Narsimhan is only challenging the penalty of ₹ 1,33,27,894/- imposed under section 78 of the Finance Act 1994. The Ld. Advocate based on the appeal memo inter alia submits that: (i) There has not been any suppression on their part as all the documents evidencing export of goods were given to the department as proof of export, when exports were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ii) ETA Engineering Ltd. Vs. CCE 2004 (36) STR 598 (Tri-Del) iv) British Airways Vs, CC 2014 (36) STR 598 (Tri-Del) v) Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. Vs. CCE 2015 (40) STR 752 (Tri-Mum) 5.1. The appellant appointed agents in foreign countries to whom they paid commission for the services rendered by them. The services rendered by the foreign based agents are covered by the definit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e deposited vide challan no. 00104 dated 08.12.2008 for April 2008 to September 2008) and (Challan No. 00554 dated 03.12.2008 for October 2008) before the issue of show cause notice and the balance amount of ₹ 26,69,801/- deposited vide challan no. 00713 dated 06.01.2009. 5.2. The department has not provided any evidence to prove any willful suppression and misstatement with an intention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
