2015 (11) TMI 522

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er Section 78 and reduced penalty from 15,000/- to Rs. 500/- imposed under Section 77. Revenue has filed this appeal for restoration of penalty under Section 78 and against reduction of penalty under section 77. 2. Shri. A.B. Kulgod, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that respondent have charged and recovered service tax from M/s. Cadbury India Ltd and have not deposited the service tax at the relevant time therefore they have defaulted the government, therefore the penalty under Section 78 and Ld. Commission should not have been dropped and the penalty under Section 77 should not have been reduced from 15,000/- to Rs. 500/-. 3. On the other hand, Shri. Sadashiv Hawaldar, Ld. Counsel for the responde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....red the submission made by both sides and perused the record. 5. The present Revenue's appeal is only for imposition of penalty under Section 78 and restoration of the penalty of Rs. 15,000/- imposed by the original authority which was reduced by the Commissioner(Appeals) to Rs. 500/-. From the entire proceedings, I observed that appellant have been making submission before the adjudicating authority and before the Commissioner(Appeals) that they did not have any intension to evade service tax as they have been making cash payment to their consultant, who was assigned the job for computing the service tax and depositing in the bank and also filing the return periodically. However, consultant has not deposited cash given to him as service....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l mis-statement, or suppression of facts or contraventions of provisions of Act Rules with intent to evade payment of duty do not stand against the appellants. Accordingly the appellants are not liable to any penalty under Section 78 of the Act. Further, in view of the said facts an extremely lenient view is called for while imposing the penalty under Section 77 of the Act for not filing the returns as the appellants had entrusted the said job to the consultant who was found to be involved in a fraud and there is no evidence contrary to the appellants claim or their collusion with the consultant. From the above findings of the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) where it can be seen that the same is discussed in details that regarding the fraud c....