2014 (4) TMI 412

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mits that prayer in the application be restricted to only interest amount. 2. Learned AR agrees that Service Tax stands deposited by the appellant. 3. In view of the above, I dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of interest and proceed to decide the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides. 4. After hearing Shri Hemant Bajaj, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants and Ms. Renu Jagdev, learned AR appearing for the Revenue, I find that the appellant was providing various services falling under various categories to M/s. Hindalco Industries. He was duly registered for the same and was paying Service Tax accordingly. Based upon the scrutiny of records of M/s. Hindalco Industries, proceedings were ini....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R appearing for the Revenue submits that Section 80 of the Finance Act is meant only for extending the benefit of non-imposition of penalty on the ground of reasonable cause. The same cannot be referred to or relied upon for holding that there was no suppression. 7. After appreciating the submissions made by both sides, I find that as per the findings arrived at by the Joint Commissioner, Service Tax was not deposited due to unawareness which has been taken as a reasonable cause for failure to deposit of Service Tax. As such, he has not imposed any penalty by invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Section 80 is to the effect that no penalty shall be imposed on the assessee for any failure referred to any Section 76, 77 or 78 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....owing the precedent decision in the case of Vulcan Industrial Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner [2006 (194) E.L.T. 331 (Tri.)] has held that once the appellate authority comes to a finding for not imposing penalty on the ground that there was no intention to evade payment of duty, the same criteria would apply for the purpose of limitation. To the similar effect is the Tribunal's decision in the case of Kerala State Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. CST, Trivandrum [2011 (21) S.T.R. 423 (Tri.-Bang.)] laying down that if the Commissioner has vacated penalties imposed on the assessee, the extended period could not have been validly invoked to confirm the demands. Further, the Tribunal in the case of M.P. Water and Power Management Institute v.....