TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 858X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f service tax and mere non-filing of returns does not attract the provisions of Section 78 as it contains the words fraud, wilful mis-statement and suppression of facts - The impugned order is modified to the extent of setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 78 only without disturbing the confirmation of demand, interest thereon or the late fee imposed u/s 77 of FA, 1994 - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of assessee. - ST/27327/2013 - A/30354/2017 - Dated:- 9-2-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Sh. V.S. Sudhir, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Sh. M. Chandra Bose, Joint Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER [Order Per Sulekha Beevi, C. S.] 1. The above appeal is filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. Consultant Sh. V.S. Sudhir submitted that the appellant is contesting only the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. That the appellant had provided the services to Government Departments and they did not receive the service tax component. They could not discharge their tax liability only because of financial hardships. It is submitted by him that the appellant is not guilty of any suppression of facts for the reason that the amount of service tax demanded has been arrived on the basis of the turnover reflected in the financial statements of the appellant. He relied upon the judgment in the case of Punj Lloyd Ltd., Vs CCE ST, Rohtak [2015 (40) STR 1028 (Tri-Del)] to canvas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g suppression of facts. It is also noteworthy that total demand raised is arrived from the financial statements and such other documents furnished to the department by the appellant. Nothing hidden was unearthed by the department. Mere non-payment of service tax and mere non-filing of returns does not attract the provisions of Section 78 as it contains the words fraud, wilful mis-statement and suppression of facts. It is also submitted by the appellants that they did not receive the service tax component from the service recipients which are mostly Government Departments and therefore could not discharge their service tax liability. It is pleaded by them that they were under much financial hardships. The decision in the case of Punj Lloyd L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
