Home > judiciary > Service Tax > Bangalore CESTAT on section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 -


Please Wait ..

Sign-in to your account


Username:
Password:

Remember Me

Forgot your password?

Sign-up now



Join CAclubindia.com and Share your Knowledge. Registered members get a chance to interact at Forum, Ask Query, Comment etc.


Bangalore CESTAT on section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 -

Court : CESTST


Brief : : Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Penalty- Not to be imposed in certain cases -Assistant Commissioner dropped penalty proceedings against assessee on finding that certain factors created confusion in mind of assessee which was a reasonable case on part of assessee to pay tax on time and he had paid service tax before issuance of show case notice - However, revisional authority set aside above order and imposed penalties on assessee - Tribunal in case of Majestic Mobikes (P.) v. CST [2008]16 STT 296 (Bang- cestat) had examined vary similar issue and set aside a like order passed by revisionary authority - Whether following above decision of Tribunal impugned order was to be set aside - Held, yes [Para 5]


Citation : Vinayaka Travels v. Commissioner of Service tax , Banglore


Judgment :


FACTS The Assistant Commissioner on finding that certain factors had created a confusion in the minds of the assessee which was reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in his failure to pay the service tax on time and since assessee had paid the service tax with interest much prior to the issue of the show cause notice, set aside penalty. However, the revisional authority revised said order and imposed penalties on the assessee. On appeal : HELD The original authority had examined the issue with regard to non-imposition of penalty. The assessee had deposited the service tax along with interest before the issue of show cause notice. It did not have any intention to evade duty, as it had bonafide belief and there were factors which had created confusion in the minds of the assessee with regard to the service tax to be paid. That very reason was examined by instant Tribunal in the case of Majestic Mobikes (P.) Ltd v. CST [2008]16 STT 296(Bang. - CESTAT) and similar orders passed by the revisionary authority had been set aside. Therefore, following the above judgment rendered in Majestic Mobikes (P.) Ltd. case (supra), the impugned order was to be set aside. [Para 5]





Posted by : [Scorecard : 2905] Posted on 14 November 2008


Tags :- bangalore cestat section 80 finance act1994
Read / Write Comments








Submit



Quick Links







Browse By Category


 


Subscribe to Feeds

Subscribe to Judiciary Feed


Enter your email to receive Judiciary Updates:








back to the top