2016 (11) TMI 788

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the Appellants Shri R K Mishra, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa The challenge in the present appeal is to penalty of Rs. 19,69,650/- imposed under section 78 and Rs. 1000/- imposed under section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. As per facts on record, the appellant is a Government Society established by the Chhattisgarh Government for distribution of various items under ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated 2.4.2008. The said show cause notice culminated into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority, confirming the demand along with confirmation of interest and imposition of penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act. Penalty was also imposed under section 76 and 77 of the Act. 4. On appeal, the said order of the original adjudicating authority was upheld by Commissioner (Appea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ountering the argument learned DR submits that appellant having failed to discharge their service tax liability, are liable to penalty as held by lower authorities. He accordingly, prays for rejecting the appeal. 8. After considering the submissions made by both the sides, I find that the challenge in the present appeal is only to penalty. The circular No. 89/7/2006-ST dated 18.12.2006, has obser....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lso, I find that in the absence of any evidence to reflect upon any positive suppression or mis-statement with an intent to evade payment of duty longer period of limitation would not be available to the Revenue. 9. Tribunal in the case of Surat Municipal Corpn. Vs. CCE, Surat [2006 (4) STR 44 (Tri-Del)] has observed that the Society being a statutory Govt. body, there cannot be any malafide inte....