Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 59 - CESTAT KOLKATALevy of Service Tax - service tax liability as a receiver of service, since the service provider Newsco had an office in Mumbai - suppression of facts or not - extended period of limitation - levy of penalty u/s 77 and 78 of the Finance Act 1994 - HELD THAT:- The entire issue of service provided by Newsco to the Appellant was within the knowledge of the department. The Appellant was in correspondence with the department and informed the department about the payment of service tax by them vide letter dated 11.12.2009. Thus, it is found that there was no suppression involved in this case. Since the entire service tax along with interest was paid, there was no need to issue the Notice as provided in Section 73(3) of the Finance Act. Thus, the Notice issued by invoking extended period is bad in law and it cannot be sustained. The adjudicating authority went ahead and adjudicated the Notice and imposed penalties under section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act 1994. As there was no suppression involved and there was no intention to evade payment of service tax, penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, not imposable in this case. As there was no violation of provisions of Section 77, no penalty imposable under this section. In the case of ORISSA BRIDGE & CONSTRUCTION CORPN. LTD. VERSUS CCE., BHUBANESWAR [2008 (8) TMI 585 - SUPREME COURT], it has been held that Agree with the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the activities carried out by the appellant amount to manufacture of the goods. There was no suppression involved in this case. Accordingly the penalties imposed on the Appellant under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance, 1994 set aside - appeal allowed.
|