2016 (10) TMI 283

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Respondent : Shri L. Patra, Authorised Representative ORDER Per : Mr. P. M. Saleem Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the Commissioner by the impugned order has set-aside the decision of the adjudicating authority waiving penalties under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. He contends that the original adjudicating authority (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "16. I find that penalty under Section 76,77 and 78 has been proposed in the instant case. The assessee pleaded that due to genuine belief that service to Government Agencies is non taxable they have not collected service tax and filed ST-3 return accordingly. Thus, no penalties are imposable. I find substance in their argument. It is fact that the assessee has not collect ed service tax on the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fender was not liable to act in the manner prescribed in the statute, penalty was not imposable. While passing the above decision, the Hon'ble Tribunal has considered ruling of Apex Court in the case of M/s Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa (1978 (2) E.L.T.-J159). In the said judgement, the Apex Court has held that an order imposing penalty for failure to carry out the statutory obligation was t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....2006 is not applicable in the instant case. It is observed that the original adjudicating authority had not waived the penalties on the said ground but on facts of the case. Hence, we find that there is infirmity in the decision of the Commissioner in the impugned order. Further, it is also observed that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Motor World (supra) has held that when the....