TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 834X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. It is also fact that the appellant paid the service tax along with interest before issuance of show cause notice and informed to the department. In these circumstances, the appellant case is squarely covered by Section 73(3) of the FA, 1994 - there is no mala fide intention or suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. The case is squarely covered by Section 73(3) of the Act, accordingly the appellant should not have been issued any SCN, consequently no penalty either should have been proposed or imposed in such SCN - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/87513/2013 - A/88257/17/STB - Dated:- 7-7-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Ms. Mansi Patil, Advocate for Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... involved is November 2006 to December 2008 which is much prior to the judgment in the Circular. She submits that since the issue involved is of serious interpretation on the taxability of the service in question, there was no mala fide intention to evade service tax. She also submits that the appellant is being a law abiding company paid the service tax and interest thereon even before the show cause notice. Therefore the proceeding should have concluded in terms of Section 73(3) of Finance Act, as submitted above. Since the non-payment of service tax in time was due to uncertainty of the taxability there was bona fide belief of the appellant accordingly the penalties under Section 76 78 should not have been imposed. She also submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that the appellant being organized public sector is supposed to know about the liability of taxability. Therefore it cannot be said that the appellant was ignorant regarding the taxability of the service. He submits that the appellant have not declared transaction of the service in question in their return therefore their bona fide is not proved. Hence, the penalty under Section 76 78 was rightly imposed by the adjudicating authority, it does not require any interference. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides, we find that the issue related to the taxability on the service provided from abroad and r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the service tax, or the person to whom such tax refund has erroneously been made, may pay the amount of such service tax, chargeable or erroneously refunded, on the basis of his own ascertainment thereof, or on the basis of tax ascertained by a Central Excise Officer before service of notice on him under sub-section (1) in respect of such service tax, and inform the [Central Excise Officer] of such payment in writing, who, on receipt of such information shall not serve any notice under sub-section (1) in respect of the amount so paid : Provided that the Central Excise Officer may determine the amount of short-payment of service tax or erroneously refunded service tax, if any, which in his opinion has not been 18 paid by such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
