TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as they did through Counsel at this stage - Following decision of Sangameshwar Pipe and Steel Traders case [2002 (1) TMI 115 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI]. Amounts were collected by the appellant from their clients for rendering the services of a ‘steamer agent’. The amounts so collected were to be remitted to various governmental authorities towards statutory levies. However, the appellant had collected huge amounts from their clients far in excess of the statutory levies and retained the excess amounts so collected with them. The statement also reveals that the amounts collected from the clients were far higher than the statutory levies required to be collected; in many cases, the same were a couple of times more than the requirem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visaged under the law. The conduct of the appellant by collecting huge amounts under the guise of statutory levies far in excess of such levies clearly reveals mala fide intention on the part of the appellant. Therefore, imposition of maximum penalty as provided for in the law cannot be faulted. - Decided against assessee. - ST/246/2005 - Final Order No. A/686/2013-WZB/C-I(CSTB) - Dated:- 8-3-2013 - Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (T) and Anil Choudhary, Member (J) Shri Bharat Shmlani, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Rakesh Goyal, Addl. Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The appeal and Miscellaneous application arise from Order-in-Appeal No. AT/325/M-III/2004, dated 22-6-2005 passed by the Commissioner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dditional ground. The show cause notice was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise. However, at the relevant time, the power to issue show cause notice vested with the Asst./Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise and hence, the notice has been issued without jurisdiction. On this ground alone, the appeal succeeds and should be allowed. (2) The appellant has discharged service tax liability on the service charges collected for the steamer agent services rendered to their clients. Extra amounts were collected from their clients for payment of various statutory levies to various governmental authorities which are in the nature of reimbursable expenses. After discharging these levies, in certain cases, some amounts were left with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rendering the services of steamer agent and therefore, whatever amount has been retained by them forms part of the consideration received for the services rendered and is liable to service tax. Extended period of time has been rightly invoked as the appellant had not disclosed these receipts in their service tax returns and the entire matter came to light only when the investigation started. Hence the extended period of time has been rightly invoked. Inasmuch as the appellant has concealed the facts, penalty has been rightly imposed and the provisions of Section 78 as it stood at the relevant point of time permitted imposition of penalty upto twice the amount of service tax evaded. Accordingly he pleads for upholding the order and dismissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merits of the case, from the records and the statement of the Managing Director of the appellant firm it is evident that the amounts were collected by the appellant from their clients for rendering the services of a steamer agent . The amounts so collected were to be remitted to various governmental authorities towards statutory levies. However, the appellant had collected huge amounts from their clients far in excess of the statutory levies and retained the excess amounts so collected with them. From the details given in the statement recorded, on 35 occasions no statutory levies were involved and yet the appellant collected huge amounts running into a few thousands of rupees from their clients in the guise of statutory levies. The state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued in March, 2002. As held by the Hon ble Apex Court in the Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd. [2008 (9) S.T.R. 314 (S.C.) = 2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.)] case, it is the date of knowledge which is relevant for computation of time limit for issue of show cause notice. In the present case, the department came to know of suppression of value only in January, 2002 when the statement of the appellant was recorded and the notice has been issued in March, 2002. Thus the notice has been issued well within time and the plea of time bar fails. 5.4 As regards the quantum of penalty imposed in the present case, the law as it stood at the relevant time prescribed a minimum penalty equal to the tax sought to be evaded and a maximum penalty of twice the amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
