TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (1) TMI 339
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erals, a proprietorship concern. During investigation the appellants paid service tax due of Rs. 3,35,152/- (Rs. 3,28,581/- service tax + Rs. 6571/- Education Cess) and on 29-6-2006 paid the applicable interest of Rs. 46,716/-. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the above liability against the appellants but refrained from imposing any penalty on them relying on several case laws which had held that once the assessee had made good the excise duty not paid/short paid along with applicable interest before the issue of show cause notice, the assessee was not liable for penalty. Revising the above order under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act), the Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum imposed penaltie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stant case, since there are no such findings against the assessee, the proceedings should have been treated to be concluded on 29-6-2006 when the appellant paid the tax due along with applicable interest. 3. He also relies on the following case law, wherein it was held in similar circumstances that penalties were not imposable on the assessee by the Revisional Authority : (i) CCE, Jalandhar v. Darmania Enterprises - 2009 (14) S.T.R. 741 (P&H) (ii) Majestic Mobikes Pvt. Ltd. v. CST, Bangalore - 2008 (11) S.T.R. 609 (Tri.-Bang.) 4. Learned JCDR submits that in the instant case the proceedings were initiated on receipt of intelligence of evasion of service tax by the appellant. The original authority had refrained from imposing penalties r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n goods transport service with effective from 1-1-2005 in respect of goods transported by us. As M/s. Bharath Mines & Minerals, Bellary, have not paid service tax on freight charges incurred by them because, it is a proprietorship firm, I being a Goods Transport Agency for M/s. Bharath Mines & Minerals, Bellary, going to pay service tax and the same will be paid within seven days, on the said taxable service along with interest." 5.1 The only indication this statement gives is that the appellant was not aware of the liability found against it by the lower appellate authority. Vide Circular F. No. 341/18/2004-TRU, dated 17-12-2004, the CBEC had issued the following advice to the departmental officers : "In case of omission in payment of se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervice tax, chargeable or erroneously refunded, on the basis of his own ascertainment thereof, or on the basis of tax ascertained by a Central Excise Officer before service of notice on him under sub-section (1) in respect of such service tax, and inform the [Central Excise Officer] of such payment in writing, who, on receipt of such information shall not serve any notice under sub-section (1) in respect of the amount so paid :" 6. I also find that the appellant's case is amply supported by the caselaws relied on by him. (i) In CCE, Jalandhar v. Darmania Enterprises case (supra) the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana had reproduced an extract of their order in a similar case to reject the appeal filed by the Revenue seeking to impose ....