9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aterial facts from the department, therefore, the penalties have rightly been imposed upon the appellants under section 77 and 78 of the Act. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced penalty from Rs. 1,37,899/- to Rs. 91,100/- imposed under section 78 of the Act. The demand was reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals) after extending the benefit of exemption Notification No.6/2005-ST dt.1.3.2005. The appellant being aggrieved with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), have come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The facts briefly recapitulated to appreciate the issue are as under:- The appellants are engaged in providing cleaning services to M/s.Punjab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 (SC) and principal bench of CESTAT in the case of R.S.Travels vs. CCE, Meerut-2008 (12) STR 27 (Tri.-Del.). They also contested imposition of penalty and requested for waiving penalty under the provision of section 80 of Finance Act, 1994. Ld.Counsel submitted that they were under bonafide belief that they were not liable to pay service tax and no penalty was imposable under sections 76, 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994. 4. On the other hand, ld. DR reiterated the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that the facts of the case are very clear that the appellant have suppressed the fact providing cleaning service to M/s. Punjab Alkalies and Chemicals Limited (PACL), Nangal, Distt.Ropar, Punjab. It was only on initiat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of limitation is not invokable since willful suppression has clearly been manifested. Para 7.1 and 7.2 of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) are self explanatory. 7.1 Further, as regards the argument that after the facts of non-payment of services came into the knowledge of the department, any show cause notice served beyond the stipulated period of one year is time barred, it is observed that acquiring knowledge by the Department does not take away the period of five years provided by the Law Makers in the Act itself when Department came to know of the willful suppression with intention to evade payment of duty/service tax. In this regard, I also rely upon the judgement of Hon'ble CESTAT, New Delhi (Larger Bench) in the case of Nizam Sug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... definition shows that the concept of knowledge by the departmental authority is entirely absent. Hence, if one imports such concept in sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Act or the proviso thereunder it would tantamount to rewriting the statutory provision and no canon of interpretation permits such an exercise by any Court. If it is not open to the superior court to either add or substitute words in a statute such right cannot be available to a statutory Tribunal. 20. Thus, what has been prescribed under the statute is that upon the reasons stipulated under the proviso being satisfied, the period of limitation for service of show cause notice under sub-section (1) of Section 11A, stands extended to five years from the relevant date. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
