2008 (11) TMI 111

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the Appellant. Shri S. Gautam, D.R, for the Respondent. [Order].- The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant is wholly government owned corporation incorporated by Government of Punjab. The appellant was engaged in the supply of raw material to the small scale industries and entered into an agreement with M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. for supply of material on commission ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... equal amount of tax of Rs. 1,52,499/- under Section 76 and 78 of the Act separately. 2. Learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Act is beyond show cause notice dated 20th June, 2005. He, further submits that the appellant is a State Government Undertaking and rendered service on the basis of agreement with Hindustan Zinc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inc Ltd. as the case may be. It was also contended that in view of the above mentioned clause, the concerned Manager of the raw material department, Jalandhar was having bona fide belief that obligation under Service Tax are to be complied by Hindustan Zinc Ltd. It is also revealed from Review Show Cause Notice dated 23.1.2008 that during the internal audit it was noticed that service tax was not ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the penalty. 5. In the present case, I find that the Asst. Commissioner imposed penalty under Section 76 after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The Commissioner in the impugned order observed that the appellants failed to avail amnesty scheme to escape from penal action. And therefore, they are liable to pay penalty. I am unable to agree with such finding of the Commissioner....