TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 393
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 of the Finance Act, 1994 and also imposed penalty under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a partnership firm and are engaged in providing architect service and are duly registered since 1998. The dispute is for the period 2000-01 to December 2004. On verification of the balance sheets and Profit and Loss Account and other documents, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant demanding the service tax amounting to Rs. 63,78,887/- and cess of Rs. 60,274/- during the period from April 2004 to December 2004 under Section 73 of the Finance Act along with interest and penalty. After following the due process, the original authority confirmed the demand and app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugned revision order imposing penalties under Sections 76, 77 and Rs. 90 lakhs under Section 78 of the Act. Hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner by invoking revisionary power under Section 84 of the Finance Act is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the facts and the decisions rendered by Tribunal and various High Courts. He further submitted that the respondent has invoked Section 84 only to revise the Order-in-Original partly and there is no confirmation of demand of service tax or interest by invoking extended period of limitation in the impugned order. He further submitted that without deman....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f CCE Vs. Sunitha Shetty [2006(3) STR 404 (Kar.)] and CST Vs. Handimann Services Ltd. [2011(24) STR 641 (Kar.)] and in CST Vs. Motor World [2012(27) STR 225 (Kar.)]. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellant has collected the service tax but did not deposit the same and therefore the Commissioner has rightly invoked his revisionary power and imposed the penalty after upholding that there was a suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of tax. 6.1. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of material on record, we find that the original authority has specifically recorded the findings that there was no intention to evade the payment of service tax and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s payable under Section 78, Section 76 is not attracted. Therefore, no penalty can be imposed for the same failure under both the provisions. (3) Even if the ingredients stipulated in Sections 76 and 78 of the Act are established, if the assessee shows reasonable cause for such failure, then the authority has no power to impose penalty in view of Section 80 of the Act. (4) Even after holding that the ingredients stipulated in Sections 76 and 78 exist, and there is no reasonable cause shown for failure to comply with the said provisions, the authority has the discretion regarding the quantity of the penalty to be imposed. However, the penalty to be imposed cannot be less than the minimum or more than the maximum prescribed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 80 of the Act and decided not to impose any penalty under Section 78. There was no basis for the Revisional Authority-cum-Commissioner to acquire the jurisdiction to impose penalty. There is no evidence produced before the revisional authority or any other authority to prove fraud, collusion, misrepresentation etc. so as to attract the application of Section 78 of the Act. In our view, the Tribunal has rightly restored the order of the Assessing Authority. Therefore, no question of law much less any substantial question of law would arise for determination of this Court. 4. As a consequence, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 6.3. Further this Tribunal in the case of S-Mac Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangal....