TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (9) TMI 45
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntal Representative (SDR) for the Revenue and none for the respondents. [Order per M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical)] - This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 349-ST/APPL/KNP/2008 dated 30.9.2008 in so far as the same relates to setting aside the penalty imposed by the original authority. 2. None appears for the respondents in spite of notice. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appeals) upheld the demand of service tax and interest. However, he set aside the penalty. Hence the department is in appeal. 5. Learned SDR reiterates the findings and reasoning of the original authority and the grounds of appeal. 6.1 I have carefully gone through the submissions and perused the records. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the respondent has made out a reasonable cause....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t waiver of penalties on the ground that they have not deliberately acted to evade the payment of service tax.The appellants submitted that they were under the impression that once the tax liability has been discharged at the time of purchasing the services from BSNL, and data online the further redistribution shall not attract service tax. The appellants have pleaded that due to this belief, they....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the opinion that this is a fit case for allowing the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. I therefore, hold that no penalty is imposable on the appellants under Section 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994." 6.2 In other words after taking note of the facts that the respondent was redistributors of online services and that the original suppliers have paid service tax and that the re....