AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 519
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ORDER Per ASHOK JINDAL: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the penalty under section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant got registered under commercial construction service with effect from 26.6.2007. During the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 are impossible and accordingly, the penalties were confirmed. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. Learned Consultant appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant hired service tax consultant for getting their records verified. During the course of verification, the consultant advised the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....penalty. 4. On the other hand, learned AR strongly opposed the contention of the learned Consultant and submits that it was in the knowledge of the appellant that they were required to pay service tax. If no audit took place, they are not required to pay service tax with this intention the appellant has not paid service tax. Therefore, there was no reasonable cause shown for n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... argument of the learned AR is that the appellant has failed to show reasonable cause for non payment of service tax as they were not registered with the department since June, 2007 and heavily relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Mahesh Vaktawarmal Rathod (supra) and Ganta Ramanaiah Nadu (supra). 8. In both the cases, this Tribunal has defined the reasonable cause....