9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.2009 in Appeal No. ST/779/2008) Shri R.K. Saini, DR for Appellants. None for Respondent. Per P.K. Das: Heard the ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue. None appeared on behalf of the respondent. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents were engaged in providing services under a category of "Manpower Recruitment Agency Services". During the inquiry conducted on M/s. Go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposited by them. He also imposed penalties of equal amount to tax under Section 78 and penalties under Section 76 & 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalties in exercise of the powers under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Hence, the Revenue filed this appeal. 3. Ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue submits that the respondent failed to deposit the tax as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s it came to their knowledge. The Commissioner (Appeals) extended the benefit of Section 80 of the Act as the respondents proved that there was a reasonable cause for the said failure. It is also noted that the respondent deposited the tax with interest long before issue of the show cause notice. So, the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly set aside the penalties exercising the powers under Section 80 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside penalty was upheld. Further, in the case of Flyingman Air Courier Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2006 (3) STR 283 (Tribunal-Delhi), it has been held that the appellant under a bona fide belief of being not covered under definition of 'courier' services failed to pay the tax, imposition of penalty is not sustainable under Section 80 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
