TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (5) TMI 69
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8-ST dated 31.1.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad-III Commissionerate, Hyderabad. In fact, one of the appeals is filed by the revenue against the same impugned Order-in-Original. 2. Shri Moheb Ali, learned Consultant appeared on behalf of the assessee and Mrs. Joy Kumari Chander, learned JCDR for the revenue. 3. We heard both sides. 4. First, we shall deal with the assessee's appeal and thereafter, we will take up the revenue's appeal. M/s. Indian Institute of Chemical Technology (IICT), Hyderabad took Service Tax Registration in the year 2002 under the category of 'Scientific and Technical Consultancy Services', which is taxable. However, the officers of the DGCEI conducted cer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....75. Penalties were proposed under Section 76 and 77. 5. The assessee's submitted that they have been paying Service Tax on all services except grants-in-aid received from the Government Departments/Ministry. It was contended that in terms of the Board's Instructions, in the case of government departments/ministerial grants, no Service Tax is payable. However, in respect of the payments received from non-government agencies, they had paid Service Tax before the issue of show cause notice an amount of Rs.61,73,714/-. During the personal hearing before the Commissioner, the assessee had submitted that an amount of Rs.61,73,714/- towards Service Tax had been paid by them and it was urged that the balance amount of Rs.76,94,747/- need n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... given a finding that in respect of these projects, the assessee would not be covered by the Board's circular. He has given a finding that the Service Tax liability on these projects would be Rs.13,52,074/-. There is a finding in Para 25, which is reproduced below: "I found that Service Tax of Rs.13,52,074/- is not paid by M/s. IICT by wrongly classifying under Grant-in-aid category and suppressed the said receipts for the purpose of payment of Service Tax and the same is recoverable from M/s. IICT under the provisions of law". 6.2 Further, the Commissioner has given a very clear-cut finding to the effect that there was no mala fide involvement of the appellant and there existed a reasonable cause for their failure to pay Service Tax.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vocate for the appellants as well as ld. SDR for revenue on merit, for imposition of penalty, we are deciding the issue of imposition of penalty under Section 76 & 77 also. We find that under Section 80, which reads as under:- "80. Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases- Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of Section 76, Section 77, Section 78 or Section 79, no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure referred to in the said provisions if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure". There is a provision for not imposing any penalty, if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. We find that the appellants, in this case, are manufacturer of ....