TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (6) TMI 84
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mr.S.Udayakumar, CGSC JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.) This appeal is directed against the order of the CESTAT dated 12.11.2001 passed in Final Order No.1744 of 2009. 2. The issue relates to the levy of penalty. The substantial question of law that raised in this appeal reads as under: "Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is right in holding that none ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... way of necessary notice and statements were recorded on 02.03.2006. The receipt of Rs.1,11,79,757/- for the period from 16.06.2005 to 31.12.2005 from the buyers of flats for providing such service tax was noted. The liability was determined by the assessing authority by assessing the tax amount at a sum of Rs.3,68,932/- along with cess. Thereafter, the respondent paid a sum of Rs.2,33,098/- towar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....specific finding by the Commissioner to the effect that there was any fraud or collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention with any intent to evade payment of service tax. 5. A perusal of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 makes it clear that where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded by reason o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t on and from 16.06.2005. Though ignorance of law cannot be an excuse for payment of service tax, when it comes to the question of imposition of penalty and when the statute specifically stipulates the circumstances under which such penalty and interest thereon can be levied, we are of the considered opinion that in the absence of any specific finding relating to such instances, viz., fraud or col....