TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though it was filed prior to the subject amendment. The Bench observes that the applicant have discharged the entire tax liability of ₹ 41,72,645/- as demanded in the SCN along with interest. They have co-operated with the investigation and in the proceedings before this Commission. Accordingly, the application filed by the applicant is settled in terms of the following order passed under sub-Section (5) of Section 32-E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to Service Tax vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. - The Service Tax payable in this case is settled at ₹ 41,72,645/-. The Bench imposes a penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) on the applicant for the violations as alleged in the SCN. Immunity is granted to the applicant from payment of penalty in excess of the said amount. - immunity granted from prosecution . - F. No. 292/ST/GTP/2013(MB) & S.A.(ST) No. 734/2013 - Final Order No. 202/ST/JL/2014 - Dated:- 28-8-2014 - Shri A.K. Prasad, J.P. Gregory and Vineet Kumar, Members Shri Shailesh Sheth, Advocate, for the Assessee. Shri L. Inderjit Singh, Inspector, Central Excise, for the Department. ORDER This o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8-6-2010 w.e.f, 1-7-2010. 2.5 From the abovementioned facts and provisions of law, it appears that the activities carried out by the notice are appropriately covered under the category of Construction of Residential Complex Service as defined under Section 65(30a) of the Finance Act, 1994 and the same became taxable w.e.f. 1-7-2010. They obtained the Service Tax registration on 19-7-2010 (STC No. AAIFP0062DSD001) for providing those taxable services. However, the assessee has failed to pay the service tax from the quarter ending December, 2010 onwards till the time of enquiry, thus, contravening the provisions of Section 66 Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 by not paying service payable by them within due dates. It further appears that the assessee had neither paid Service Tax properly for rendering the said services not filed the prescribed returns with the Jurisdictional Central Excise authorities, in terms of above provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Service Tax Rules, 194 2.6 In view of the above, it appears that the activities carried out the assessee in relation to sale of residential flats in their newly cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) of the Finance Act, 1994, as the case may be, for suppressing the facts from the Department about providing taxable service to their clients/customers and also for failure to pay Service tax, in accordance with he provisions of Section 68 of the Act; (v) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 77 of the Act, for failure to furnish periodical returns and to declare the above facts in the returns as required under Section 70 of the Act, read with Rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994; and (vi) Penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 76 for failure to pay service tax, in accordance with the provision of Section 68 of the Act. Disclosure of the Applicant 3.1 The applicant prays that; (a) The Hon ble Commission be pleased to admit the present application. (b) The Hon ble Commission be pleased to settle the case on the admitted service tax liability of ₹ 41,72,645/- with interest thereon amounting to ₹ 3,57,313/-. (c) This Hon ble Commission be pleased to direct that the amount of ₹ 41,72,645/- paid by the Applicant towards service tax liability and amount of ₹ 3,57,313/- paid towards the inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded by reason of (a) fraud; or (b) coflusion; or (c) wilful mis-statement; or (d) suppression of facts; or (e) contravention of any of the provisions of this Chapter or of the Rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of Service Tax. (c) The CESTAT, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad in a recent decision dated 17-6- 2013 in the case of M/s. Rikin Industries v. Commissioner of Service Tax - 2014 (34) S.T.R. 252 (Tribunal) had refused to interfare in the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who overturned the Order passed by the lower adjudicating authority who gave relief to the assessee in so far as imposition of penalty is concerned, in terms of Section 73(3). 5.3 In light of the above, it is prayed that Hon ble Settlement Commission, may reject M/s. Aishwaryam Ventures, request for non-imposition of penalty under Section 78 or Section 78(1), Section 77 and Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 and disallow its prayer for grant of immunity from prosecution. Hearing Hearing in this case was held on 15-4-2014. Shri Shailesh Sheth, Advocate appeared on behalf of the applicant M/s. Aishwaryam Ventures. The Revenue was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as gone through the application filed by the applicant, the report dated 1-4-14 received from the jurisdictional Commissioner and the submissions made at the time of personal hearing held on 15-4-14. 10.2 M/s. Aishwaryam Ventures, the applicant in this case, are engaged in providing service falling under category of Construction of Residential Complex . Enquiries conducted by the Service Tax Department, Pune, revealed that the applicant had not been discharging their service tax liability even though the said service had become taxable with effect from 1st July, 2010. The investigations in the case which started on 27-9-11 resulted in issue of SCN dated 25-7-13 demanding service tax amounting to ₹ 41,72,645/- for the period July, 2010 to September, 2011 and proposing imposition of penalty on the applicant. 10.3 The applicant in their defence have submitted that vide Finance Act, 2010 an explanation was inserted in Section 65(105)(zzzh) of the Act defining term taxable service in relation to construction of residential complex with effect from 1st July, 2010. With the insertion of above explanation, the activity of sale of dwelling/residential units in a residential ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observes that the applicant have discharged the entire tax liability of ₹ 41,72,645/- as demanded in the SCN along with interest. They have co-operated with the investigation and in the proceedings before this Commission. 11. Accordingly, the application filed by the applicant is settled in terms of the following order passed under sub-Section (5) of Section 32-E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to Service Tax vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. ORDER Service Tax : The Service Tax payable in this case is settled at ₹ 41,72,645/-. This amount has already been paid by the applicant and no further liability subsists in this regard. Interest : The interest payable in this case is settled at ₹ 3,57,313/-. This amount being paid by the applicant, no further liability subsists on this account. Penalty : The Bench imposes a penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) on the applicant for the violations as alleged in the SCN. Immunity is granted to the applicant from payment of penalty in excess of the said amount. The above amount of penalty should be paid within 30 days of the receipt of this order by the applicant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
