2009 (9) TMI 273

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isposed by a common order. 2. The relevant facts of the case are as under :— The appellant was issued a show-cause notice for non-payment of Service Tax (including cess) of Rs. 3,43,533 leviable on manpower recruitment and supply agency service rendered to M/s. ITC Hotel Windsor Sheraton and Towers, Bangalore for the period from June, 2005 to December, 2006. The adjudicating authority vide the impugned order held that Service Tax on the said services rendered by an individual is payable only with effect from 1-5-2006 and accordingly confirmed the applicable Service Tax of Rs. 1,05,561 along with interest, appropriated the Service Tax amount of Rs. 94,501 already paid by the appellant, imposed a penalty of Rs. 200 per day under secti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of. It is his submission that the adjudicating authority and ld. Commissioner (Appeals) have not considered the submission made by the appellant, as to, he being an individual, was not aware of the provisions of the Service Tax and hence, should invoke the provisions of section 80 for setting aside the penalty imposed under various sections. 4. Ld. DR would submit that the fact that appellant has discharged the Service Tax after the same was noticed by the departmental officers is itself enough for imposition of penalty on the appellant under the provisions of section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. He would also submit that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the penalty imposed under section 78 but dropped the penalties imposed on t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tax law and was not well-versed. He also put the plea before the lower authorities that immediately after the visit of the departmental officers, he paid the duty along with interest. I find strong force in the contentions of the ld. Counsel of the appellant. The appellant/assessee being an individual and engaged in supply of manpower, may not be well-versed with the provisions of the Service Tax Act and more so when the services came into Service Tax net from 1-5-2006. In view of this, I find that the infraction of the appellant/assessee needs to be considered sympathetically and I invoke the provisions of section 80 to set aside the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority and as upheld by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) under section....