2018 (1) TMI 532 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Penalty – non-payment of service tax – Held that: – the reason for setting aside the penalty by the appellate authority is lack of evidence reflecting upon the malafide intention of the respondent. Revenue in their memo of appeal has not produced sufficient evidence to rebut the above finding of the Commissioner(Appeals) – appeal dismissed – decided against Revenue. – ST/87144/17 – A/91625/2017 – Dated:- 15-12-2017 – Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member(Judicial) Shri Suresh, AC(AR) for the Revenue Shri Sujay Kantawala, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per Mrs. Archana Wadhwa. Being aggrieved with that part of impugned order Commissioner(Appeals) vide which he has set aside the penalty on the respondents, w
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ity in time although they had duly reflected the facts in their Balance sheets for the relevant years. Here I agree with the contention of the appellant that delay in payment of taxes is not evidence of intention to evade tax and that is something that can not be dismissed straightaway in this case. A delay in payment of taxes, in absence of any other convincing evidence, is more reflective of lack of promptitude than deliberate evasion. Since the appellant has already deposited a substantial amount upto the stage of adjudication and did not contend the tax liability and have in fact also paid the dues in respect of their other units which were not covered under the Centralized Regn. which only establishes their bonafide action. Thus, I fin
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ile 9 ST-3 returns, ends of the justice would meet by imposing penalty of ₹ 20000/- only in place of ₹ 1,440,000/- as imposed in the O-in-O. 3. As is seen from above, the reason for setting aside the penalty by the appellate authority is lack of evidence reflecting upon the malafide intention of the respondent. Revenue in their memo of appeal has not produced sufficient evidence to rebut the above finding of the Commissioner(Appeals). As such I find no infirmity in the impugned orders and no reasons to interfere in the same. Accordingly appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. (Pronounced in the open court on 15.12.2017.) – Case laws – Decisions – Judgements – Orders – Tax Management India – taxmanagementindia – taxmanagement
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =