75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

August 2015

2015 (38) STR 980 (Tri.-Del.) Mohan Poddar vs. CCE, Raipur

By Puloma Dalal
Jayesh Gogri
Mandar Telang Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
In absence of any evidence proving mala fide intention, penalties cannot be levied.

Facts:
The appellants were providing construction services, and were unaware of their service tax liability. On being pointed out by DGCEI, service tax liability was discharged. Accordingly, it was contended that in absence of any evidence proving mala fide intention, willful suppression or misstatement, penalties should be waived off u/s. 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Held:
There were no observation at all regarding sustainability of allegation of suppression of facts in “discussion and finding” portion of the order and the adjudicating authority had jumped to the conclusion of suppression of facts. Further, since section 80 was invoked for waiving off penalty u/s. 76, the said section should apply mutatis mutandis to section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 as well. Furthermore, in any case, in absence of malafides, penalty u/s. 78 could not be imposed.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

[2015] 58 taxmann.com 343 (New Delhi – CESTAT) – Suzuki Motorcycle (I) (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III.

2015 (38) STR 1162 (Tri.-Del.) Piramal Healthcare Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Indore.