2008 (8) TMI 54

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appeal itself is being taken up for disposal. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants M/s. Faithful Security Services, Coimbatore (FSS), had rendered security services during the period 4/2000 to 3/2004. In February, 2005, the officers of the Coimbatore Central Excise Commissionerate made a surprise visit to the premises of the appellants and inspected the records. It transpired that during the material period the appellants had paid service tax only in cases where they could collect the same from the customers, After due process of law, the original authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 8,09,486 being the short-paid service tax and appropriated the said amount already paid by the appellants. The original authority also demanded a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he circumstances as in the subject case." He also submits that the department had set up a redressal mechanism since, which allowed relief in penalty up to 75 per cent of the duty demanded when tax demanded is paid promptly. The prayer in the appeal is reiterated. 5. The Ld. JCDR submits that the plea of bona tide belief cannot be accepted as the restriction of service tax liability of the assessees to tax received from their clients ceased in October 1998 and the appellants alone could not have continued to entertain a bona fide belief for six years hence that the earlier law continued. It is also submitted that the decision of the Tribunal cited by the Ld. Counsel had relied on the Apex Court judgment in Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd v.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hich ordered waiver of penalty cited had allowed that relief considering the prompt payment of the tax as a sufficient mitigating factor. I find that the Hon'ble. High Court of Bombay held as under in the following decisions as regards discretion to impose lower penalty under sections 76 and 78 of the Act. (a) CCE & C v. Ashish Vasantrao Pantil [Central Excise Appeal No.4 of 2007, dated 18-10-2007] "...The ld. Tribunal considered the power conferred on it under section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 exercised its discretion and reduced penalty to the sum of Rs. 4,000. We have taken a view that considering sections 76 and 80, it is open to the Tribunal to exercise such discretion. Once the discretion is exercised and we find that ther....