9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the Appellants were engaged in providing security services and registered with the Central Excise Authorities in 1998. They were under the impression that service tax has to be paid upon receipt of payment of the recipient of services. Accordingly, they deposited the tax in 2001 which was recovered from the recipient of services. In September, 2004, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to be paid when the amount is received from the recipient of the services. He further submits that the Central Excise authorities issued summons in September, 2004 and the appellants immediately deposited the entire amount of tax along with interest long before issue of show cause notice. They acted under bone fide belief. So, Section 80 would be attracted and penalty is liable to be set aside. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opted for registration in 1998. The appellants had paid tax in 2001 of certain amount recovered from the recipient of services. The Central Excise Authorities issued summons in 2004 for non-filing of return and non-payment of tax. The appellants at the instance of the officers immediately deposited the entire amount of tax in November, 2004 and interest was paid in May-September, 2005. Thereafter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bona fide belief that Security Agency is not liable to pay tax. It has been held that interest compensating for delay in payment of tax and therefore, separate penalty is not imposable in such case. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that non-filing of ST return was caused due to the bona fide belief of the appellants and the appellant was registered in 1998. However, they pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
