TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee suppressed the facts from the Revenue with an intention to evade payment of service tax and when when there are malafides proved on the part of the appellant-assessee, they would not be entitled to take the benefit of provisions of Section 73(3)(4) ibid. Imposition of penalty under Section 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Order-in-original imposed penalty of 200& of the liability of Service tax - Held that:- the penalty of 200% of the Service Tax due, which was the maximum fixed under the then law, can be imposed under Section 78 ibid. Therefore, the penalty of 200% of the tax due is not rightly justified and is reduced to 100% of the liability of payment of Service tax. There is no justifiable reason to interfere with in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2. Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Belgaum confirmed service tax of ₹ 6,03,859/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Nine only) along with interest and imposed penalties of ₹ 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) under Section 77 and penalty of ₹ 12,07,718/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighteen only) under Section 78 and did not impose any penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act. 1.3. The appellant viz. M/s. Kalyani Enterprises went in appeal against order-in-original dated 12.07.2010 before Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the order-in-original and rejected the appeal vide his order-in-appeal dated 14.03.2012. Against this order-in-appeal the appellant-assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne Workforce Solutions Ltd. [2012 (26) S.T.R. 3 (Kar.)] b) CST, Bangalore Vs. Prasad Bidappa [2012 (26) S.T.R. 4 (Kar.)] c) CEA No. 62 of 2010 filed in Karnataka High Court by Commissioner 2015 (39) S.T.R. J90 3. The Revenue represented by learned AR Shri Pakshi Rajan, inter alia submits as follows: i. The appellant paid service tax but not before adjudication and after receipt of letter from Central Excise Range officer. ii. Appellant-assessee applied for registration on 31.01.2008 but did not declare/disclose to the Department of their rendering of subject services from October 2005 onwards; therefore, appellant s argument is not tenable for the main reason that there was a clear fraud on the part of the appellant i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e liable to pay service tax. Once the Department started enquiries with the service recipients of the appellant-assessee and got the information, then only appellant-assessee came forward to pay the liability of service tax for the period from October 2005 to March 2008 to the tune of ₹ 6,03,859/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Nine only). Appellant-Assessee later paid interest also on the Service Tax, when the Central Excise Range Officer issued letter dated 08.04.2008 asking the appellant-assessee to pay the interest on the main liability of payment of service tax. 4.1. The appellant s pleading that they are innocent and did not have any intention to evade payment of service tax is not entirely proved by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not be entitled to take the benefit of provisions of Section 73(3)(4) of Finance Act 1994 here. The appellant took the registration under Service Tax on 05.02.2008 but did not come forward to give the details of services provided by them to their customer recipients, where they had liability of payment of service tax to the Department. These facts are proved by both the order-in-original dated 12.07.2010 passed by Additional Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Belgaum and by the order-in-appeal passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mangalore dated 14.03.2012. 4.2. Further it is found that in this case order-in-original imposed the penalty of ₹ 12,07,718/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Seven Thousand Seven Hundred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
