TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 845
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tax demand of Rs. 26,36,363/- for the period from 1/7/2012 to 31/3/2013 against the noticee, under proviso to Section 73(1) [Existing Section 73(4)] if the Finance Act, 1994. Since, the aforesaid amount is already paid by the noticee, Rs. 26,36,363/- is appropriated to the Govt. account. ii) I confirm recovery of interest from the noticee, on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 26,36,363/- under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. iii) I impose penalty of Rs. 13,18,182/-@ 50% of the amount of Service Tax confirmed in terms of 1st proviso to Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, since details of the transactions are available on their specified records penalty would further be reduced to Rs. 6,59,091/- @ 25% of Rs. 26,36,363/-, if inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otification No. 45/10-ST dated 20/7/2010 from retrospective effect. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant filed the present appeal only for waiver of penalty imposed under Section 78 and late fee for delayed filing of ST-3 returns under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules. 3. Shri. Amit Agrawal, Ld. C.A. with Shri. Kaushik Khairnar, Ld Counsel appearing for the Appellants submit that the appellant is providing service exclusively to State Government company i.e. M/s. MSEDCL therefore all the transaction are legitimate and the same is as per the contract between them and the M/s. MSEDCL therefore there is no malafide intention on the part of the appellant. He further submits that the iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was paid before issuance of show cause notice and remaining amount was also paid after issuance of show cause notice alongwith interest. Therefore entertaining their belief that the service tax is not leviable on their services provided to M/s. MSEDCL when it was made clear that service is taxable during the adjudication process appellant admittedly paid entire amount confirmed in the adjudication order alongwith interest and in this fact, penalty should not have been imposed on the appellant under Section 78. As regard the late fee for filing the ST3 returns, he submits that the requirement of filing of ST 3 returns arises only when the service is taxable. In the present case, admittedly services are not taxable till 30/6/2012. Since in ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ectricity distribution companies. This confusion stand confirmed on the ground that to remove the confusion on the issue, the exemption notification No. 45/2010-ST by which the said service was made exempted from retrospective effect. It is also observed that even from Jul, 2012 the negative list of services was introduced in the Union Budget, 2012 wherein electricity distribution utility services listed in the negative list. This entry further created confusion that whether the appellant is falling under the negative list or otherwise. Therefore as per the above confusion, it is clear that the appellant entertained bonafide belief and hence not paid the service tax. However when the issue was made clear the entire service tax demand confir....