TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut what amount they received from M/s North Eastern Coal Fields, Coal India Ltd., Assam, the same has been paid to the Government Account. In the present case, the appellants were no doubt under bonafide belief that the activity may not be liable for payment of service tax as the activity of mining was included as a separate service tax w.e.f. 01.06.2007 only. Keeping in view the disputed nature of service tax and bonafide belief of the assessee, we are of the view that this is a fit case to waive penalties under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 - demand of interest upheld. The issue is decided in the case of NATIONAL MINING CO. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DIBRUGARH [2007 (10) TMI 227 - CESTAT, KOLKATA], where the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 1,68,70,620/- was upheld along with an order for payment of interest under Section 75 as well as penalties under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The service tax involved therein has also been paid by the appellant after issuance of show-cause notice against the impugned order. The main grounds advanced by both sides are as follows : (i) In the appeal filed by assessee, it is argued that the service tax liability is not challenged and the same has already been paid. The assessee was under a bonafide belief that the act involved in the contract was not liable to payment of service tax. Since M/s North Eastern Coal Fields, Coal India Ltd., Assam, did not initially pay the service tax, no service tax was paid, but once the se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Co. Ltd. Vs. CCEx., Dibrugarh : 2008 (10) S.T.R. 136 (Tri.-Kolkata) ; (ii) Ramesh Construction Company Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur : 2017 (52) STR 291 (Tri.-Delhi). 5. The ld.D.R. while justifying the order, submitted that the adjudicating authority has erred in not imposing penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. He further submitted that since the appellant is not challenging the service tax liability, the interest under Section 75 is required to be paid. However, he reiterated the Revenue s grounds that the quantification of penalties under Section 76, has not been done correctly by the adjudicating authority. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. 7. In terms of the contract awarded by M/s Nor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are not challenging the tax amount itself which they have already paid and recovered from their clients. In view of the fact that the tax liability is not being challenged, the interest liability is required to be discharged by the appellants, as has been ordered by the Adjudicating Commissioner. However, keeping in view the disputed nature of service and the interpretation of the scope of the service involved, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case to waive the penalty under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 as the appellants have taken out Service Tax Registration as well as taken steps to obtain a clarification regarding taxability service and the tax amount has only subsequently been reimbursed to the appellants by their client ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
