2014 (8) TMI 346

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o, DC (AR) JUDGEMENT 1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of predeposit of penalty of Rs. 18,55,964/- imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1944. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The applicants entered into a contract with M/s.Koito Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Japan for training and technical assistance. They were paying service tax under reverse charge ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he learned advocate on behalf of the applicant submits that they have paid the tax along with interest before issue of show cause notice. Therefore, no penalty should be imposed under the provisions of Section 73 (3) of the Finance Act, 1994. He further submits that there is a conflicting decision of the Tribunal in respect of levy of tax on the reimbursable expenses. In this context, he relies up....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of tax. 6. After considering the submissions of both sides and on perusal of records, I find that the applicant has not disclosed the nature of payment in their returns. So the Revenue was not aware of the reimbursement expenses. The period of dispute relates to 2006-07 to 2010-11. It is seen that non-payment of tax was discovered by the audit party during examination of the records. In view of....