TAMILNADU MACHINE WORKS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants challenge the imposition of penalty of Rs. 40,000 in terms of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the reason that there was no suppression on their part so as to warrant imposition of penalty. They also challenge the imposition of penalty under Section 77.

(2.) I have heard both sides. The statement of Sri M. Senthilvelu, proprietor of the appellant is that he was not aware of the liability to service tax on service of maintenance and repair and erection, commissioning and installation and on being made aware of the liability to tax, he paid the entire service tax amount. No knowledge of liability to tax during the period in dispute has been admitted by him. The department has not discharged the burden to show that there was any suppression on their part so as to warrant imposition of penalty under Section 78. I, therefore, set aside the same.

(3.) THE appeal is thus allowed in part.