CCE Vs. SHRI B.K. SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED DR submits that when the appellant made breach of law, he was brought to the purview of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) without any cogent reason has waived the penalty. Therefore, Revenue is aggrieved. There is suppression of fact for which penalty was imposed.

(2.) SHRI S.K. Agrawal, Consultant appearing for the respondent submits that the appellant has already paid service tax. But for the confusion in the interpretation of law as to whether the appellant shall be a commercial concern and without any deliberate breach of law, penalty has been imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

(3.) LEARNED Commissioner has noticed in para 2(b) of the order in appeal that the appellant had voluntarily applied for service tax registration on 18.6.99 and also paid service tax for the services provided. When the appellant conceded that he is not a commercial concern, he informed the authority on 22.11.2005 that the appellant is not liable to service tax. Further correspondence with the department also shows that the appellant was cooperative to provide all information to Revenue. Considering the factual matrix of the case, learned Commissioner (Appeals) in para 7 of the order has noticed that facts and circumstances of the case does not provide any scope to make allegation of suppression of fact or wilful mis -statement of facts with intent to evade duty. For such reason, he waived the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.