9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 624X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ized Representative for the Respondent ORDER The only challenge in this appeal is to the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Heard both sides and perused the documents placed on record. 3. Show Cause Notice dated 15.09.2014 was issued alleging inter alia violation of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules, 2006, in as much as the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even on the ground of extended period of limitation. Further, it is also noticed that for the earlier period covering 2003-04 to 2007-08, a similar Show Cause Notice dated 24.04.2009 was issued proposing demand of Service Tax on the differential amount. The Show Cause Notice in the case on hand covering the period 2009-10 and 2010-11 was issued on 15.09.2014, which is clearly after invoking the la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notice had mainly alleged violation of Section 67 read with Rule 5 ibid., which had finally been interpreted in favour of the taxpayer by quashing Rule 5 and therefore, the appellant was correct in claiming that it was a bona fide interpretational error and no motive could be attached. 6. In view of the above, I am of the view that the Revenue has erred in levying penalty under Section 78 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
