Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2017 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1073 - AT - Service TaxNon-payment of service tax - case of appellant is that the appellants were doing the job work as well as the work of maintenance and repair. Due to bona-fide mistake, they showed the maintenance and repair charges under the ledger relating to job work - Held that: - The appellants, who are registered under this service and regularly paying the Service Tax for this service, are expected to be aware of repair charges and job work. They failed to establish that the job charges as reflected in the balance sheet are different from the repair and maintenance service charges. Besides, there is no job work challans or any other documentary evidence to justify the receipt of so called job work charges. Hence, we hold that the appellants had knowingly and deliberately shown the repair charges as job work charges to mislead about their taxability. Since they had deliberately and knowingly suppressed the value of taxable services in the guise of job charges and mis-declared the value, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the demand, interest and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act. However, the appellants would be entitled to the benefit of 25% of the reduced penalty in view of the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Sunshine Steel Corporation Vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I [2017 (4) TMI 34 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] - Section 78(I) is pari-materia to Section 11AC and the second and third proviso to Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 are pari-materia to first and second proviso respectively of Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act. Since they had already paid the full amount of duty determined under Section 73(2) and the interest before the issue of show cause notice thereby meeting the requirement of second proviso of Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of reduced penalty. As for the simultaneous penalty under Section 76 and 78, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE Vs. First Flight Courier Ltd. [2011 (1) TMI 52 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] has held that penalty under Section 76 may not be justified if the penalty has already been imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act 1994. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
|