TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 1480
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent ORDER Per: Shri P.K. Choudhary The Revenue is in Appeal against the impugned order wherein the lower appellate authority, though having confirmed the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 14,71,899/- and upholding the penalties imposed under Section 76 and 77 and setting aside and abstaining from imposing penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Ld.AR appearing on behalf of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cording to the exigencies of the client. The ld. Counsel vehemently argued that some of their clients arguably refused to pay Service Tax and accordingly they failed to collect and deposit the same to the Govt. exchequer. Service Tax being an indirect tax, the respondents were under the bona fide belief that they are required to deposit the tax only when collected and accordingly whenever any am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....intention to avoid payment of Service Tax and their submissions have been accepted by the lower appellate authority. The relevant para of the impugned order is reproduced below :- "Regarding penalty imposed under section 78 of the Act, I find that the SCN stated the no service tax was deposited for the relevant period by the appellant when the adjudicator found that the appellant have actually de....