TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 511
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 13.08.2009 made in Final Order No.970 of 2009 on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai was admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether no penalty under Sections 76 and 77 can be imposed if the failure is supported by reasonable cause in terms of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994? (ii) Whether the order of the Tribunal imposing penalty under section 76 and 77 without rendering any finding on rasonable, vitiates the order for filing to take into account relevant aspect, thereby rendering the order bad for want of jurisdiction? (iii) Whether the order of the Tribunal confirming the levy of penalty after finding that taxes has been paid even before the iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re not willing to reimburse the service tax and hence, the incidence of service tax had to be paid out of the price already agreed upon. The assessee also agreed to pay interest and sought for dropping of the penalty proceedings. 4. Not satisfied with the reply filed by the assessee, the Adjudicating Authority passed an order in the following manner: " 16.1. The amount of service tax demanded in the service tax was Rs. 3,08,750/- whereas the assessee had stated the amount paid prior as well as after the issue of the SCN, as stated in the reply dated 24.11.20023 to be adjusted against the demand. Accordingly the revised working sheet is prepared and enclosed as Annexure to this order. I confirm that the assessee shall pay the Service t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner (Appeals), the assessee went before the Tribunal. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Original Authority for de novo adjudication holding that since the appellant was acting in his individual capacity as proprietor of the company and the said capacity was not disputed by the Authorities below, it was open to the authority to examine the question whether the benefit of Noficiation No.7 of 2001, which granted exemption to taxable service provided to a client by an individual professional videographer in relation to video tape production from the whole of the service tax leviable, was available to the assessee. 7. Subsequent to the remand order, the Adjudicating Authority adjudicated the matter once again and confirmed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... extended. In the absence of such a substantial plea and there being no bonafide justification for exemption, penalty was imposed. We find no reason why the Authorities should depart from imposing such penalty as mandated by the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the first and second questions of law are answered against the appellant/assessee and in favour of the respondent/Revenue. 13. As far as the third question of law is concerned, it is seen that the said issue is covered by the decision of this Court dated 12.12.2014 in C.M.A.No.2440 of 2008 in the case of Dhandayuthapani Canteen - Vs - Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, wherein this Court, while considering the issue whether the penalty is imposable where the ta....