TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Under the circumstance of uncertainty in law, the appellant could not pay the service tax for about six to eight months ie.e for the period from 01.06.2007 to 01.01.2008, which was paid by them on 31.03.2008 alongwith interest - it is a fit case for invoking under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/171/2011 - A/11364/2017 - Dated:- 7-7-2017 - Dr. D. M. Misra, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Shri Gunjan Shah, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri T. K. Sikdar, Authorised Representative ORDER Per: Dr. D. M. Misra This is an appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal No.467/2010(STC)/MM/Commr(A)/Ahd. dated 13.12.2010 passed by Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant had applied for registration on 21.12.2007. Since, the service tax was levied for the first time w.e.f. 01.06.2007, there was confusion on the applicability of service tax for supply of buses to Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Corporation (AMTC). Also, an understanding was reached between the appellant and Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Corporation (AMTC) where under the Appellant to pay 30% of the service tax and the service receiver AMTS to pay 70%. Therefore, immediately on receiving 70% of the service tax from AMTC they paid the entire amount on 31.03.2008 much before the issuance of the show cause notice. It is his contention that there was bonafide cause in not discharging service immediately after the levy was brought into force and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to transport authorities will attracts the levy, however, dropped the penalty against the bus owners who supplies of buses Transport authorities. It is observed as: As regards penalty, the very fact that there are more than 200 appellants before us against the decision to demand tax, and also almost all of them are individual bus owners and the transaction was with a public sector undertaking, we consider that appellants had reasonable cause for not paying the service tax during the relevant period. Therefore even though we have upheld the invocation of extended period for the purpose of confirming the demand of service and interest thereon, we consider that these are cases where we should take a lenient view as regards penalties by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
