9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, is the subject matter of the present dispute. 2. During the period October, 2010 to March, 2011, the appellant did not discharge its tax liability within stipulated time frame and the same was deposited into the Government exchequer subsequently, but before the issuance of show-cause notice. While adjudicating the matter, the original order had i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the appellant therein. 4. On the other hand, learned D.R. appearing for Revenue reiterates the finding recorded in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. The fact is not in dispute that the service tax for the disputed period was paid by the appellant before issue of show-cause notice and the interest amount was paid subsequently, before the adjudication of the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but they have been paying service tax in installment and almost entire demand was paid before issuance of show-cause notice. The appellant given reason for non payment of service tax in time that they were in severe financial crisis. It is also fact that appellant had accounted for entire service tax payable as an outstanding in their books of accounts which shows that they had bonafide intention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed in the above terms." 7. In view of the above position of law, as decided by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal, I am of the view that the benefit of Section 80 of the Act should be extended to the appellant for non imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned order, so far as it confirmed the penalty on the appellant is set aside and the appeal is allowed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
