2014 (8) TMI 229

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n appeal against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) waiving penalty under Section 80 of the Finance Act, imposed by the original authority under Section 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The brief facts of the case are the respondent is engaged in providing Commercial Construction Service and Works Contract Service. Based upon the investigation, a demand notice dt. 28.7.2009 was issu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....994. 3. In brief the demand of Rs. 28,16,785/- consisting four parts namely:-     (i) Rs. 17,95,695/- pertaining to the period July to September 2008 which was paid by the respondent with a delay of 19 days. The reason was due to absence of the dealing hands. No penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act was imposed in respect of this amount.     (ii) Demand....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....service tax along with the interest on the TDS amount. 4. Respondent have also filed cross-objection. The main grounds of the respondent are that there was no intention whatsoever to evade the duty and the duty amount under dispute is negligible compared to the total duty payments made by the appellant and delay has happened due to reasonable causes as explained by them. Under the circumstances....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the respondent's main contention was that there is delay of just 19 days in respect of major part of the demand the amount alongwith interest was paid suo moto by them and there is no justification whatsoever to impose any penalty. In fact as per Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, no notice was required to be issued. As far as the remaining demands are concerned they have already explained....