Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

there is a provision for not imposing any penalty if the assessee proves that there was a reasonable cause for the said failure. We find that the appellants, in this case, are manufacturer of Air-conditioning System. The charge is that central excise officers on scrutiny of the various documents relating to job work orders undertaken by the appellants found that they provided assistance and review in basic design criteria, including design loads for all project components including engineering calculations, estimates of main equipment capacities and sizes to M/s. GCHPL and charged fees from the client. The lower authorities have held that the appellants have rendered drawing, design, technical, consultancy services and are covered by the scope of consulting engineer and accordingly, demanded service tax. The appellants have not contested the levy of service tax. They have cooperated with the Investigating officers. Since they were under the bona fide doubt regarding their activity whether covered by service tax or not, therefore, there was a reasonable cause on their part in not depositing the service tax in time. Therefore, we are of the view that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, the appellants are entitled for the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act and accordingly, we hold that no penalty should be imposed on the appellants. Accordingly, we set aside the penalties imposed under Sections 76 and 77 and allow their appeal to this extent.