2019 (5) TMI 1761

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellant. Shri P. R. Gupta, Authorised Representative for the respondent. ORDER ANIL CHOUDHARY: Heard the parties. 2. The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant has rightly been imposed penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act. 3. The brief facts are that the appellant is a Recovery Agent working for ICICI Bank Ltd. As per their agreement with the Bank, the appellant w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l be liable to pay service tax and accordingly, the amount was worked out at Rs. 5,06,110/- and further, directed to deposit the entire amount of service tax, as per calculation according to Form 26 AS, the bank statement, and as per Income Tax Return. 5. In response thereto, it is admitted fact that the appellant deposited tax of Rs. 4,66,561/- plus 1,02,039/-, totalling Rs. 5,68,600/- paid on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sioner (Appeals), challenging the imposition of penalty. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty under Section 77. However, he confirmed penalties under other sections. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 7. Ld. Counsel states that there is no allegation of any melafide, as it appears from the facts on record. The appellant was working for ban....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....orised Representative for the Revenue opposes the appeal and states that the appellant should have taken steps for discharge of their tax obligation and should not have imagined that the bank is taking care of the service tax liability. Further, the ld. Authorised Representative also relies on the following case laws, in support of their contention and also relies on para-6 of the impugned order:-....