TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 839X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter of substantial litigation. Since in the present case full tax amount stands discharged we note that the circumstances of imposing penalty is not justifiable. This is a fit case for invoking provisions of Section 80 for waiver of penalty on reasonable cost for non-payment of tax. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - ST/608/2012-[DB] And ST/CROSS/3186/2012 - A/50039/2018-CU[DB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se charge basis in terms of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. The Original Authority confirmed the tax liability. However, he did not impose penalties on the tax liability on banking service. He impose penalty equivalent to tax liability under Consulting Engineering Service. 2. The Ld. AR elaborating the grounds of appeal by the Revenue submitted that the Original Authority should have impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t from 18/04/2006 after the introduction of Section 66A in the Finance Act, 1994. The matter was further affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court 2010 (17) STR J 57 (SC). The Board issued circular accepting above decisions on 26/09/2011. In the facts of these developments, it is clear that there can be no malafide attributable to the respondent on tax liability on reverse charge basis. Even other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. Finally, the matter was resolved by Hon ble Bombay High Court in the Indian National Shipowners Association (supra) which was affirmed by the Apex Court and clarified later in confirmation by the Board in September, 2011. In view of such development it will not be sustainable to allege malafiede on the part of the assessee in order not to pay tax on such reverse charge mechanism. Since in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
