2017 (1) TMI 1503

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Mr. A.P. Srinivas, Senior Standing Counsel JUDGMENT (Dr. ANITA SUMANTH,J.) This appeal challenges the confirmation of penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994(in short 'Act'). The assessee is a proprietorship which had registered itself as a Mandap Keeper in terms of the Act. A show cause notice was issued, after an investigation, on 27.03.2007, to the effect t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of an accident. It was also specifically noted by the Officer that when the lapse was pointed out to the assessee at the time of inspection on 17.05.2007, he had immediately came forward to pay the differential service tax and co-operated fully in all proceedings in this regard. The proceedings for levy of penalty were thus dropped by the assessing officer on application of mind to the facts and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vision under Section 84 of the Act has been confirmed by the CESTAT on the ground that the charges for amenities was liable to be included for taxation. However, neither the Commissioner (Appeals) nor the CESTAT record a finding to the effect that there was suppression with the intent of evading tax. A bonafide omission will not lead to a conclusion of suppression under Section 78 of the Act. It i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X