9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 795X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ran, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The appellants were engaged in advertising agency business of designing and setting up of advertisement hoardings. In the year 2005, that there was lot of restrictions as well as erection of holders in public places which caused severe loss of the business to the appellant by which they were not in a position to deposit service tax collected from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hence the appellants are now before the Tribunal. 2. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel Shri G.Natarajan submitted that the appellant is not contesting the liability to pay service tax and is confining the challenge on the penalties imposed. He submitted that the appellant could not pay the service tax only due to the financial hardships caused due to loss of the business. That even with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ST 4/2005 to 9/2006 Section 78 For the period 4/2005 to 6/2005 for the unpaid ST 10/2006 to 3/2008 Section 76 4/2008 to 9/2008 Section 78 4. When the department has not been able to show any fraud, suppression on the part of the appellant to evade service tax and the non-payment was only due to financial hardships. 5. The learned AR Shri K.P. Muralidharan reiterat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his caused much financial constraints by which they could not deposit the service tax. Taking into consideration the submission made on behalf of the appellant, we are of the view that there is no evidence to establish that there was any suppression of facts and therefore the penalties imposed under sections 76 and 78 are unwarranted and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. 8. In the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
