Heard both sides. Shri R.Balagopal, ld. consultant appearing for the appellants states that the appellants were not aware that there was service tax liability on them as recipients of the GTA service. As soon as the same was pointed out to them, they have paid the service tax and interest on the full value of the service. Appellants ignorance is obvious from the fact that though they could have claimed 75% abatement, they had not done so. He further states that the lower appellate authority has taken cognizance of the arguments put forth before him but instead of waiving the penalties to the full extent under Section 80, the appellate authority has chosen to reduce the penalties only to the extent of 50%. He prays for full waiver of the penalties imposed on the appellants considering the ignorance and subsequent readiness to pay the tax and interest immediately. Heard Shri C.Dhanasekaran, ld. SDR appearing for the department.



2. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the lower appellate authority has found it to be a fit case to be covered under Section 80 of the Finan

ce Act, 1994, I waive the penalties imposed on the appellants under Section 76, 77 & 78 of the said Act. The appeal is allowed.