2018 (5) TMI 1519

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tendent(AR) - For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S. Garg  The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 02/06/2014 whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has set aside the penalty under Section 76 but upheld the penalty under Section 78 along with penalty under Section 77. 2.  Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant which is Government of Kerala ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....process, the Jt. Commissioner vide order dt. 17/03/2009 confirmed the demand and the penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who dropped the penalty under Section 76 and upheld penalties under Sections 77 and 78. 3.  Heard both sides and perused records.     4.  Learned counsel ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion of facts by a Government body is not possible as Government bodies has nothing to gain from evasion. He further submitted that the Revenue has not been able to bring on record any material to prove that the appellant failed to pay the tax by reason of fraud, collusion etc. and therefore the appellant should be given the benefit of Section 80 since they have paid the entire service tax , more t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... I find that the appellant is a Government body and dredging service was made taxable w.e.f. 16/06/2005 and they had a bona fide belief that being Government department, they are not liable to pay service tax. Subsequently, when they came to know that they are liable to pay service tax and got the show-cause notice, they paid the service tax and subsequently the interest also at the direction of t....