TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Member (Judicial) Shri S.R. Nair, Examiner (A.R.) : For the Petitioner Shri Mahesh Bhattar, C.A. : Ffor the Respondent ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair This appeal by the revenue is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.PUN-EXCUS-002-APP-098-13-14 dated 07.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Pune-II wherein the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) maintained the demand of service tax of ₹ 22,93,525/-, allowed Cenvat credit of ₹ 10,932/- and waived the penalties under Section 76 and 78 by invoking section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 and also waived penalty imposed under section 77(2) on Shri Diwan Rahul Nanda, Managing Director of the Respondents Company. 2. The facts of the case are that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10,932/- and waived the penalties under Section 76 and 78 by invoking section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 and also waived penalty imposed under section 77(2) on Shri Diwan Rahul Nanda, Managing Director of the Respondents Company. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the revenue filed this appeal challenging the portion of the order by which the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the penalties under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. Shri Sanjeev Nair, Ld. Examiner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue Appellant reiterates the grounds of the Appeal. He further submits that setting aside the penalty under Sec. 78 is not justified as the present case involves collection of service tax and non payment to the Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Diwan Rahul Nanda, who is Managing Director of the Company. He submits that as regard the penalty under Section 77 on Shri Diwan Rahul Nanda, Committee while reviewing the Commissioners order has not proposed the appeal against penalty under Section 77 set aside by the Commissioner; therefore, there is no appeal by the Revenue against Shri Diwan Rahul Nanda. He further submits that as regard the authorization by the Commissioner of the committee who reviewed the impugned order, it can be seen that both the Commissioners have signed at different dates that shows that Review decision is not unanimous decision of the committee and therefore appeal filed on the basis of such illegal Review order, deserves to be dismissed only on this ground. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 59-CESTAT-AHM]. (f) Toyota Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of E. Ex. Daman [2014(36) S.TR. 199 (Tri. Ahmd.)] (g) Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalore Vs. M/s. Motor World [2012-TIOL-418-HC-KAR-ST] (h) Jivant Enterprise Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahemedabad [2012(28) S.T.R. 582(Tri. Ahmd.)] 5.I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. 6. From the records and the submissions made, the present case is not case of evasion of service tax whereas there is only delay in payment of service tax which appellant have discharged their service tax liability alongwith interest. When the appellant, though could not pay their service tax liability in time, declared their liability in the ST3 returns, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 (CESTAT), Shree Khodiyar Security Guard Services V/s CCE (2007) 8 STR 22 (CESTAT SMB), George Thomas V/s CCE (2006) 3 STT 11 = 1 star 116 (CESTAT) wherein penalty was reduced considering financial hardship. 8.5 M/s. Tops accepted that there was apparent delay in filing the returns. However, the same was on account of compilation of the requisite information as well as due to the absence of the quality staff at the branch level for proper appreciation of the information. They stated that the company has never attempted to intentionally evade the levy of service tax at any time. It is not correct to say that the information in ST-3 return is mis-declared. They have submitted the detailed worksheet before any investigation or any audi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind that the SCN has alleged that M/s Tops Kolhapur have provided taxable services of Security Agencys Services and have received taxable value for providing these services but have not paid appropriate service tax due thereon to the Government account; with intent to evade payment of service tax. It is also alleged that a lot of time was taken by M/s Tops Kolhapur for reconciliation of receipts of taxable value, tax payable and tax paid. M/s Tops Kolhapur changed their versions of reconciliation and has not paid appropriate service tax even as per their own calculations. From the above findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), it can be seen that he has considered all the aspects and circumstances for delay in payment of service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
