2011 (11) TMI 518

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Ms. Nisha Binesh, Ld Adv., appearing for the appellants states that the appellants are not disputing the tax liability and interest liability but they are challenging the penalty imposed on the appellants under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, as there was no suppression and there was no intent to evade the tax, She states that the service was made taxable in the year 2005 and soon after the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... service tax for the period from August,2006 onwards but did not remit the same to the department. The appellants also took no action to take the registration or seek any clarification from the department till the department found out about non-payment of tax and wrote to the appellants. According to the Ld. DR, all these go to show that the appellants collected the tax and retained it with them wi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sent a communication to them, after which they came forward and paid the tax amount which they were retaining with themselves. Under these circumstances, the finding by the authorities below that the appellants were guilty of suppression requires no interference. This is a clear case where the intention to evade tax can be clearly inferred from the conduct of the appellants. Accordingly, the impu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X