TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (3) TMI 695
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....N, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri K. Parameswaran and Smt. M. Jamuna Rani, Advocates, Shri M.T. Keshav Iyengar, Advocate, Shri Dayananda K., Chartered Accountant And Shri Rajesh Kumar T.R., Chartered Accountant For the Respondent : Smt. Sudha Koka, Authorised Representative (SDR) ORDER PER SHRI T.K. JAYARAMAN Sl. No. Appeal No. Name of the party Impugned Order No. & Date Pen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be paid by them. Of course, in each case, the facts are slightly different. However, in all these cases, as soon as the lapse of not paying the required Service Tax was pointed out, the appellants paid the entire amount of Service Tax along with interest even before the issue of Show Cause Notice. The details of the date of issue of Show Cause Notice, and the date of payment in respect of each ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id not proceed to impose any penalties on them. On reviewing the orders passed by the Original Authority in respect of Sl. Nos. 1, 2 & 3, the Revisionary Authority, viz. the Commissioner, proceeded against the appellants and imposed penalties as indicated above especially in each case, the penalty equal to the Service Tax not paid was imposed under section 78. In respect of the case in Sl. No. 4, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for non-payment of Service Tax. There is actually suppression of facts in order to evade the tax. Therefore, the appellants are liable for penalty. Hence, the learned SDR requested the bench to uphold the impugned orders. 4. On a very careful consideration of the entire issue, we find that in respect of each of the cases, due to bonafide belief, the appellants did not discharge the Service Tax li....