TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not have issued any SCN for penalty - penalty set aside by invoking section 80 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - ST/CROSS/21093/2015 in ST/26494/2013-SM - A/30583/2017 - Dated:- 18-4-2017 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Shri. Guna Ranjan, Superintendent (AR) for the Appellant None for the Respondent ORDER [Order per: M.V. Ravindran.] This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-appeal No.290-2012 dated 28/12/2012. 2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent. There is an adjournment note filed by M/s. Hiregange Associates, chartered Accountants who claimed to be the representative of the respondent. On perusal of records, I find that the issue is in a short compass, Accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presenting the Revenue takes me through the grounds of appeal. After reading the provisions of Section 78 of the finance Act, 1994, he submits that for the entire period in question, the respondent had not paid the service tax from April 2006 nor he filed ST3 returns and the same was detected by the audit part when they visited the respondent s business premises. It is his submission that the respondents being registered with the Department was fully aware of the provisions of Finance Act,1994 and the rules made thereunder and was undoubtedly rendering services under the category of erection, commissioning and installation services. Having not filed the periodical returns and delayed payment, extended period was correctly invoked and it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... days from the receipt of this order in accordance with law. 8. As regards the Revenue s appeal on the penalty being set aside, I find that there is no intention to evade the service tax liability and delay in discharge could be due to non-receipt of payment from respondent s customers if could be a justifiable and reasonable cause for belated discharged of tax liability be the respondent. Respondent have discharged the service tax liability before the issuance of the show-cause notice is eligible to get the benefits of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 and the Revenue authorities should not have issued any show-cause notice for penalty. This is the law settled by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CST, Bangalore V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
