TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of CST, KOLKATA VERSUS M/S KAMRUP COKE INDUSTRIES, M/S PARASNATH COKE INDUSTRIES, M/S SKJ COKE INDUSTRIES AND VICE VERSA [ 2018 (11) TMI 1927 - CESTAT KOLKATA] , where this Tribunal held that We agree with the submissions made by the assessee that when service tax amount has been deposited before the Show Cause Notice, no penalty should be imposed. Thus, the assessee is entitled for benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 as the amount of service tax has already been paid. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for immunity from imposing penalty. Therefore, the order imposing penalty under Sections 77 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the assessee are set aside and the order dropping the penalty under Section 76 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontested for imposition of penalty under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, whereas the Revenue s appeal is contested for dropping the penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. Heard both sides. 5. Considering the facts that there is no dispute that the service tax has been paid by the service provider, although the same was paid by the assesse under reverse charge mechanism and the same has been paid and appropriated. Now, the question arises, whether in such circumstances, the assesse is required to penalize or not Similar case has been decided by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Kamrup Coke Industries SKJ Coke Industries Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata vide Final Order No.77300-77305/2018 dated 29.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court in case of Pushpadeep Enterprises (Supra) relied upon by the assessee, which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. We also find force in the argument of the assessee that in terms of the provisions of Section 80 of the Act, they are entitled to full waiver of penalty under Section 78 as well as Section 76 and 77 of the Act, inasmuch there was a reasonable case for non payment of tax as the very levy of service tax on GTA service under reverse charge was a new concept. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to burden the assessee with penalty under Section 78 of the Act and the same is therefore set aside. On the same count, since penalty under Section 76 and 77 are not imposable, the appeals filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
