9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service provider. The appellant eventually got itself registered as a service provider in March, 2007 and deposited arrears of service tax and interest, on 02.05.2007. The Adjudicating authority, however, issued a notice dated 30.04.2008, calling upon the appellant to show cause why penalty should not imposed but eventually held that as service tax was deposited before issuance of the show cause notice and the appellant had furnished a bonafide explanation, penalty cannot be levied. The revisional authority, however, issued a suo moto notice calling upon the appellant to show cause why penalty be not imposed. After affording an opportunity to the appellant, the revisional authority imposed the following penalties: "i I impose a penalty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs to be error in the order passed by the Tribunal holding that the appellant did not deposit 25% of penalty within one month of its impositions. The Tribunal lost sight of the fact that adjudicating authority did not impose penalty and therefore, the assessee did not get an opportunity to deposit 25% of the penalty, within one month. Consequently, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the appeal and as to the rights of parties, the appeal is allowed, order dated 04.07.2013, is set aside and the matter is restored to the CESTAT, for adjudication afresh. Parties through their counsel are directed to appeal before the CESTAT, on 27.01.2015. The appeal shall be decided within three months from the aforementioned date. 2. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Punjab and Haryana High Court. The appellant had been providing the impugned service since October, 2005 but had neither taken registration nor filed any returns. The service was provided under an agreement with M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd. The said agreement clearly brings out the nature of service and there was no scope for any ambiguity or doubt about the taxability thereof. In these circumstances, the allegation of suppression on the part of the appellant is clearly sustainable warranting imposition of mandatory penalty under Section 78 ibid. Learned Departmental Representative has argued that as per the Supreme Court's order in the case of BCCI versus Commissioner of Service Tax Mumbai-I - Civil Appeal Nos. 277 of 2015, during the rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
