TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, after adjusting all such payments claimed to have been made by the assessee - matter on remand. Penalty - HELD THAT:- Undoubtedly, the issue vis- -vis facts of this case involved interpretation. Moreover, the appellant has also proved its bonafides when it claimed that it had made payments right from investigation stage itself. The appellant has made out a case for exercising discretion under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 and hence, the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is set aside. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. - Appeal No. ST/42721/2018 - Final Order No. 40392/2019 - Dated:- 28-2-2019 - Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Shri S. Janakiraman, Advocate, for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eved, the assessee is in Appeal before this forum. 3. Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, Shri S. Janakiraman, Ld. Advocate appearing for the assessee submitted that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has deleted the tax liability on the reimbursements following the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (10) GSTL 401 (S.C.), but, however, there is no quantification of the final tax liability after excluding such reimbursements. He also submitted that the appellant had made payments towards the tax liability during investigation at the behest of the officers of ₹ 1,57,914/-, another payment of ₹ 46,779/- towards interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which has been followed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Moreover, the appellant has also proved its bonafides when it claimed that it had made payments right from investigation stage itself. Considering the above peculiar facts, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant has made out a case for exercising discretion under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 and hence, I direct the deletion of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The addition itself has been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) and hence, even on this count, I find that there cannot be any scope for levying penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 6. Appeal is treated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
