9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2008 to 2011-12 for which there was a non-payment of service tax under reverse charge mechanism. Enquiry was initiated for non payment of service tax. Subsequent to said enquiry, the appellant obtained registration and discharged payment of service tax by availing prescribed abatement under GTA services. Show Cause Notice dated 26th November, 2012 was issued which culminated into Order-in-Original dated 30.09.2013 wherein the Ld. Asst. Commissioner confirmed service tax of Rs. 49,305/- under section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended, and appropriated an amount of Rs. 18,145/- paid by the appellant after claiming abatement. Further, a penalty of Rs. 30,930/- and Rs. 11,000/- was also confirmed under section 78 and 77(1)(a) of the said A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Tribunal with the limited prayer for waiver of penalty under Section 77 and 78 of the Act without disputing the applicability of service tax. 3 Sri Rajeev Kr. Agarwal, CA, appeared for the appellant and Shri A.K. Biswas, A.R. appeared for the Revenue. 4. Ld. CA for the appellant submitted that non-payment of service tax in the instant case was due to an inadvertent mistake of the appellant since they were under a bona fide belief that the said liability is to be discharged by the service providers itself i.e. transport contractors. There was sufficient cause for non payment of tax under reverse charge and there was no intention to evade payment of service tax. He further stated that in identical situations where at the initia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h are on record. He accordingly prayed that the penalties imposed under section 77 and 78 of the Act be set aside. 4. Shri A.K. Biswas, A.R. appearing for the Revenue supported the order and requested to reject the appeal. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. The short issue that arise for consideration in the instant appeal is whether penalty is imposable under section 77(1)(a) and section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. I find that the levy of service tax under GTA service under reverse charge was a new subject for which there was non-payment of tax. The assessee is a PSU. No evidence has been brought on record to show that tax was deliberately not paid. On being pointed out, the assessee obtained service tax registra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
