TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 900X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - HELD THAT:- Though the appellant have made ground against confirmation of demand also but learned Counsel Shri Paresh Sheth fairly concedes that the appellant is contesting only for 75% penalty imposed under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. Though the appellant have paid 25% penalty but the same was paid after the stipulated time period of 30 days. Since the said period is statutory, same c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Paresh Sheth, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Prakash Kumar Singh, Superintendent (AR) for the Revenue. ORDER This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the order-in-original was upheld and appeal filed by the appellant was rejected. 2. The Adjudicating Authority in order-in-original confirmed the demand under the head of GTA Service in resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts that appellant has otherwise regularly paid the service tax as per bonafide belief in respect of cases where freight was paid above Rs. 750/- and Rs. 1500/-. Therefore there is no intention to evade payment of service tax. For this reason also penalty of 75% may be set-aside invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. Shri Prakash Kumar Singh, learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he calculation of limit of Rs. 750/-. Moreover, the appellant have paid entire service tax, interest and 25% penalty. In view of these facts, we are of the view that a lenient view can be taken particularly for waiver of penalty of 75%. Accordingly, we set-aside penalty of 75% under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 invoking Section 80. The demand of service tax, interest (if any) and 25% penalty un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
