TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 410
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... months they did not discharge the service tax liability by due date and thereby attracting the penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, even though they subsequently paid the service tax alongwith interest; (ii) For certain months the service tax was not paid and which was paid alongwith interest only after the issue of show cause notice and, hence, in respect of these months they were iiable for penalty under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994; (iii) In respect of the amount for the services rendered, which was received during the half year period ending September 2003 i.e. April 2003 to September 2003, the service tax was paid by the respondent at 5% adv. while during this period the rate of service tax has been enhanced to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Commissioner was directed to file an application before the Tribunal under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the correct determination of the points, as mentioned, in the order. The points for determination by the Tribunal are - (a) whether in respect of the services provided prior to 14/5/03 and in respect of which payment was received on or after 14/5/03 when the rate of service tax was 8%, the service tax would be chargeable at pre 14/5/03 rate i.e. 5% or at 8% in force w.e.f. 14/5/03 ; and (b) whether the Commissioner is correct in waiving the penalty under Section 76 and 77 when the short paid amount had been paid only after the issue of show cause notice. In pursuance of the directions dated 26/6/08 of the Committee of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibunal in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Rajkot reported in 2008 (10) S.T.R. 243 (Tri. - Ahmd.), wherein it was held that the rate of service tax chargeable is the rate in force on the date of rendering service and not the rate in force on the date receipt of payment and, hence, the Commissioner's order on this point is correct. On the question of penalty under Section 76, he pleaded that there was genuine reason - financial hardship for delay in payment of service tax and as accepted by the department, there was no suppression of any fact or wilful contravention of the law on the part of the respondent. He emphasised that since the disputed amount had been paid alongwith interest prior to adjudication, there is no case for i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of Finance Act, 1994 and also the Board's Circular No.137/176/2006-CX-4 dated 3/10/2007. He has further observed as under :- "It is observed that the assessee had declared the value of taxable services correctly in the impugned ST-3 returns, which was not under dispute. Thus, there is no mis-declaration to this extent. Further, the assessee had also declared the actual payment of service tax, though less than what was required to be paid. Apparently, there is no mis-declaration to this extent as well, meaning thereby the assessee had categorically declared that they had paid less service tax while filing the impugned ST-3 returns. Primarily, it is observed that the assessee is a registered assessee and ought to have paid the due servic....