Back
CUSTOM EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS
MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, VICE-PRESIDENT
Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai -Appellant
Versus
Aquanet -Respondent
FINAL ORDER NO. 1190/2010 APPEAL NO. ST/306/2010
Decided On : 22-11-2010
T.H. Rao,M.N. Bharathi
The Revenue is aggrieved by the setting aside of penalties imposed under the provisions of sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 by the lower appellate authority, who has however upheld the service tax together with interest against the respondents.
2. I have heard both sides. The Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside penalties by applying the provisions of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 holding that the assessees had a reasonable cause for failure to pay service tax, namely, that they were under a bona fide belief that they were entitled to small scale exemption during the financial year 2005-06 and were not aware of the fact that they were not entitled to exemption up to Rs. 4 lakhs as they were using the brand name of the major organization in the field of computer education. He also relied upon the fact that the franchisee was situated in rural background; that the assessees provided educational service mainly to poor students and relied upon the payment of entire service tax and interest immediately on receipt of the show-cause notice. The department has not put forth sufficient grounds to dislodge the above findings and, therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and hence reject the appeal, after upholding the impugned order.
