2017 (11) TMI 155

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....utside India. In terms of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994, the appellant is required to pay the Service Tax under reverse charge mechanism on the services received from outside India but the appellant did not pay Service Tax thereon under reverse charge mechanism, therefore, various show cause notices were issued to the appellant for the period 09.07.2004 to 02.03.2008. The show cause notices were adjudicated. In the initiated show cause notice was adjudicated, wherein the demand from the period prior to 18.04.2006 were dropped but for the subsequent period it was confirmed along with interest and penalty under Section 75A, 76, 77 and 78 were confirmed. In appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the penalty under Section 76 of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the penalty on the appellant be waived. He also relied on the decision of SBI Cards And Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of S.T., New Delhi 2016 (41) STR 846 (Tri. Del.) 4. On the other hand, Ld. AR submits that for initial show cause notice, they may be confusion with the appellant that they are not liable to pay Service tax but for the subsequent show cause notices, it was in the knowledge of the appellant that they were liable to pay the Service Tax under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994, therefore, they are liable to penalize and no relief under Section 80 of the Finance Act can be given to them. To support this contention, he relied upon the decision of Reliance Jute Mills (International) Ltd. Vs. CCE Calcutta 2002 (139)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....osition of penalties under section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance act, 1994. The said show cause notice stand culminated into the impugned order." This Tribunal after considering the submissions made by the both the sides and observed as under:- "3. The appellant challenge the impugned order only in respect of penalties. We find that an identical issue of the same appellant was considered by the Tribunal in an earlier matte and vide its final order No. 51054-51055 of 2016 dt. 18.03.2016 it was held as under:- "6 After having considered the submissions made by both the sides, we find that the Bombay High Court in the case of Indian Natinal Ship Owners Association (supra), clarified the law by their judgment dt. 11/12/2008.....