TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JDR, for the Respondent. [Order (Oral)]. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Eagle Detective Force. Under an Order dated7-6-2006, the Assistant Commissioner found as follows : - 6. It appears that the assessee had not paid the Service Tax due for the period from 3/2002 to 3/2005 in respect of security service provided to various service receivers on the ground that he had not received the Service Tax from respective parties. This contention of the assessee is not correct as the Service Tax is liable to be paid within a stipulated period after the close of the month/quarter under Section 68[1] of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 and there is no specific exemption for postponement of such Tax beyond the stipulated time or till such tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cting and paying the service tax. They had paid the tax due voluntarily before the issue of show cause notice on20-10-2005. The Original Authority had exercised his discretion under Section 80 of the Act and had imposed penalties under Sections 76 and 78. The order of the Original authority did not suffer from any infirmity. As the assessee had paid the tax due along with interest before the issue of show cause notice, they were not liable to any penalty. They relied on the following case-laws : - (i) C.C.E.,Delhiv. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. [2004 (168) E.L.T. 466 (Tri.-LB)] (ii) Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CCE [2004 (163) E.L.T. A53 (S.C.)] (iii) CCE, Mangalore v. Shree Krishna Pipes Industries [2004 (165) E.L.T. 508 (Kar. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pport of the claim that the appellant did not deserve sympathy under Section 80 of the Act. He also relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Madhya Pradesh Bhootpurva Sainik Kalyan Security Service v. CCE,Indore[2010-TIOL-578-CESTAT-DEL = 2010 (18) S.T.R. 484 (Tri.-Del.)] in support of the Commissioner s order enhancing penalties under Sections 76 and 78. 5. I have carefully perused the records and considered the submissions made by the learned JDR. The findings as regards the offending transactions of the appellant contained in the order of the original authority do not indicate that the assessee had wilfully evaded the payment of service tax. On its liability being pointed out, the appellant paid service tax due of 21, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l partly allowed an appeal filed by the assessee challenging penalties imposed under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act. That was a case where the assessee had not challenged a finding that it had wilfully evaded payment of service tax. While sustaining the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Act, the Tribunal remanded the challenge to penalty under Section 76 for a fresh decision by the revisionary authority after taking into account the fact that the High Court had partly struck down Section 76 of the Act. 7. In the Krishna Poduval case (supra), again, the Hon ble High Court of Kerala held in a case of evasion by suppression of facts by the respondents therein, that a person guilty of suppression deserved no sympathy under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
