TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not given any finding to reject the reason stated by the Appellant for the delay in payment of service tax. Immediately on receipt of the transport subsidy from the Government they have paid the service tax along with interes - this is a fit case for not issuing show cause notice as provided under Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. Since there is no evidence available on record to establish that the Appellant has delayed the payment of service tax with an intention to evade payment of service tax, we hold that penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, not imposable in this case. The Appellant is liable to pay interest for the delayed payment of service tax, which they have paid. The impugned Revision Order is not sustainabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also proposed to appropriate the amount of Service Tax voluntarily deposited by the appellants amounting to Rs.23,50,1365/- towards their service tax liability and Rs.47,824/- towards Ed. Cess interest amounting to Rs.4,32,069/- and refrained from imposing penalty on the Appellant. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Original dated 17/02/2009 passed by the adjudicating authority, Ld. Commissioner, reviewed the impugned Order-in- Original, in exercise of the power conferred on him under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. The Ld. Commissioner, rejected the submissions of the Appellants and confirmed a demand of Rs.26,10,337/- and appropriated Rs.23,50,136/- already paid by them and ordered to recover the differential amount of Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .80 of the Finance Act, 1994 which reads as Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of Sec. 76, Section 77 or 78, no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure referred to in the said provisions, if the assessee proves that there was a reasonable cause for the said failure. In the instant case, the delay in payment of Service Tax was due to delay in disbursement of Transport Subsidy which was a substantial amount for running an industrial unit like theirs and the reasonable cause being proved, the the original adjudicating authority, satisfied with the reasons for the delay in payment of service tax and waived imposing penalty on the Appellants. Accordingly, they contended that the impugned Revision Order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal in the case of Samtel Colour Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, reported in 2008 (9) STR 197 (Tri-Del), wherein it has been held that in the absence of deliberate fraud, collusion, suppression of facts misstatement etc in payment of service tax for the period before 31.12.2005, penalty was not imposable. 7. The Ld A.R. reiterated and justified the grounds cited in the Revision Order. 8. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 9. We observe that the issue involved in the present case is mainly penalty imposed by Commissioner in the Revision Order dated 31.03.2010, passed under section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994. From the facts of the case, it is observed that the Appellant has taken service tax registration and paid servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
