TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 800
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....il Appeal No. 6687/2005. The decision was rendered on 21.11.2005. During the period when the matter was under litigation, the assessee was not paying service tax on such services. It is the submission of the learned counsel that they were not collecting the same also. After the issue was decided in November 2005, since the appellant did not pay the service tax for the period from April 2004 to March 2005, proceedings were initiated by issuing show-cause notice on 21.6.2006. In July 2006, the appellant paid the entire amount of service tax with interest. The original adjudicating authority imposed penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act 1994 which has been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) after invoking provisions of Section 80 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reasoning. Delay in making payment of duty attracting penalty under Section 76 is condonable in terms of Section 80 if the appellants have a reasonable cause for not making the payment. They were of the view that part of services rendered by them was not liable to tax. The decision of Apex court dated 21.11.2005 finalizing the dispute having a bearing on liability between April 2004 and April 2005 cannot be a basis for employing Section 76. The delay was already committed under a bonafide belief that tax was not payable when the Apex Court passed its order. Hence the failure to collect and remit Service Tax is condonable. There is no reason to change the ground adopted in Orders-in-appeal No. 204/2005, 205/2005 both dated 28.09.2005 and 142....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bered and not listed, the learned advocate insisted that the same should be considered as an appeal filed by them. Even though, I consider that in the absence of a number being given to the cross-objections and in the absence of its listing, I am not required to consider the cross-objections, yet in the interest of justice, I proceed to deal with the issue raised by the learned counsel. Learned counsel submitted that the entire demand is time barred and has to be set aside. It is his submission that the show-cause notice did not invoke the extended period. Therefore, the demand as well as the interest which is upheld by the original adjudicating authority could not have been upheld. First of all, this issue was never raised before the origi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tails only on 9.8.2005. After the Supreme Court decision was received, it would be natural for the department to expect that assessee would pay the service tax but when they did not pay, notice has been issued. When the facts in paraprah-4 clearly indicate that the details were submitted only in August 2005 and apparently, it is not the claim of the assessee that they had furnished the details at any stage till now, nor was it made clear before me. By this, the conclusion would be that the requirement of law to declare the amounts received for services rendered has not been fulfilled. The facts as emerging from paragraph-4 in my opinion would be sufficient to conclude that the department is informing the assessee of the statutory requiremen....