TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f for the Financial Year 2009-10 was not granted as the appellant did not produce any evidence. The demand was, accordingly, reduced from Rs. 8,13,338/- to Rs. 6,65,559/-. Penalty - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner noted that the appellant had suppressed facts from the department as such facts could only be obtained from the ICICI Bank and, therefore, the penalties were correctly imposed. However, the quantum of penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act was reduced to Rs. 6,65,559/-. There is, therefore, substance in the submissions advanced by the learned authorized representative appearing for the department that there is no error in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - The appeal is, accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant that even though the appellant was engaged in providing recovery agent services made taxable under section 65(105) (zzzl) of the Finance Act, 1994 [The Finance Act] but the appellant did not pay service tax. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand of service tax with interest and penalty. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was dismissed. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is as follows: 6. I find that the adjudicating authority has correctly recorded his findings that the service tax on recovery agent service was introduced w.e.f. 1.5.2006 vide Notification No.15/2006-ST and continuously covered under the scope of recovery agent serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the appellant did not comply with the provisions of law and contravened the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 and suppressed the facts from the department which could only be obtained from the Bank, as detailed in the impugned order, hence penalty under Section 77 78 of the Act has rightly been imposed by the adjudicating authority providing the detailed reason for such imposition. However the quantum of penalty under Section 78 of the Act is reduced to Rs.6,65,559/-. These finding find force from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of UOI Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors 2008(231) ELT 3(SC) wherein the Apex court has held that if the statute prescribes penalty for breach of civil obligation, penalty is imposable i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
