2009 (1) TMI 73

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....est and a total penalty of Rs.14,190/- imposed under Sections 76, 77 & 78 of the Act on the applicants. The lower appellate authorities held that the applicants had availed service classifiable under Goods Transport Agency (GTA) Service during the period January 2005 to March 2006 but had not paid the tax due of Rs.57,423/- . The assessee had paid service tax only on 25% of the taxable value in terms of Notification No.32/2004-ST dt. 3.12.2004. In terms of the above Notification, liability to tax under GTA service is abated upto 75% subject to, inter alia, the condition that the GTA had not availed CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods. The GTA had to enter this information on the consignment notes covering transport of the consignments....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... it was clarified that no penalty was to be imposed in cases of omission in payment of service tax  by persons liable to pay service tax on the goods transport by road committed prior to 31.12.2005 unless there was fraud, collusion or suppression of facts involved in their failure to pay service. The original authority had imposed penalties under Sections 76 & 78 equal to the tax short-paid during January to March 2006 and imposed Rs.1000/- under Section 77 of the Act for failure to file service tax return. The total penalty amounts of Rs.14,190/- imposed under these three sections were sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) as appropriate. The ld. counsel reiterates the plea made against imposition of these penalties.  It is sub....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uspects that the certificates issued are not genuine, it will not be difficult to verify the authenticity by referring to the excise officers having jurisdiction over the GTAs concerned. In the circumstances, the dispute is remitted to the original authority for a fresh decision. As regards penalties imposed, the original authority did not impose penalty for default during the period upto December 2005 holding that the same was not on account of fraud, collusion, suppression of facts etc. I find that it may not be appropriate to hold that such circumstances existed during the period January to March 2006. Therefore, the penalty of Rs.6595/- imposed under Section 78 of the Act is not sustainable. Section 80 of the Act provides for waiver of ....