2018 (2) TMI 1564

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al is filed by Revenue. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent were issued with a show cause notice dated 24/04/2012. One of the proposal in the said show cause notice was to impose penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the respondent. The said show cause notice was adjudicated through impugned Order-in-Original wherein the Learned Original Authority dropped the proposal of imposition of penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 on the respondent. Aggrieved by the said part of the impugned Order-in-Original, Revenue has preferred present appeal. 3. The respondent is absent on call. Heard the Learned A.R. for Revenue and perused the record. For the purpose of convenience grounds of appeal raised by Revenu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....being a State Government Department, there exist no mala fide intention or willful intent of evading payment of service tax on the part of the Noticee. Hence, I hold that imposing penalty under Section 78 is not justified and proper. The Noticee have also made a reference to Police Headquarters seeking a clarification in the matter of payment of service tax. Hence, it is not a case of flagrant violation of law. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jalandhar Versus Darmania Enterprises 2009 (14) S.T.R. 0741(P & H). " Having heard learned counsel for the Revenue we are of the view that the provisions of Section 80 of the Act in un-mistakable terms provide that despite the provisions of Section 78, no penalty should be imposed on ....