TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt was admittedly liable to pay the service tax in respect of services provided by him. Prior to the present proceedings, a show cause notice for the earlier period was issued to them. As such they were aware of their liability to discharge service tax and it cannot be said that they were entertaining any bonafide belief about their service tax liability - In any case, it stands observed by the lower authority that the appellant was recovering the said tax amount from their customers, in which case again their plea of financial difficult cannot be appreciated. In these circumstances, the applicability of Section 80 is ruled out. The law provides for imposition of penalty, which stands rightly imposed by the adjudicating authority - penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds adjudicated and is not the subject matter of the present proceedings. As the appellant continued not to pay service tax in respect of various services undertaken by them, a subsequent show cause notice dated 25.11.2011 was issued to them raising demand of duty of ₹ 15,72,641/- for the period April 2010 to September 2010. The notice also raised demand of ₹ 2,81,446/- for the earlier period on the ground that the same was not included in the earlier show cause notice dated 21.10.2010 and as such was missed out. Further, notice also proposed to deny the cenvat credit of ₹ 79,218/- availed by the appellant on Car Hire Charges/Air Travels etc. 2. The said show cause notice culminated into an order passed by the Addl. Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice issued on 21.10.2010. He submitted that complete adjudication is required to be done by the officers and raising of demand subsequently by way of another show cause notice is neither proper nor judicious. 3.3 As regards Cenvat credit of ₹ 79,218/- availed in respect of car hire charges and air travel charges, he submitted that the same has been held to be input services eligible for the purpose of cenvat credit by various decisions of the Tribunal. 4.1 After hearing the Ld. DR I find that the appellant is not disputing the confirmation of demand of tax of ₹ 15,72,446/- and the show cause notice is also within the period of limitation and the said demand relates to non-payment of service tax on the appellant s taxable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nataka High Court, it is seen that the appellant was admittedly liable to pay the service tax in respect of services provided by him. Prior to the present proceedings, a show cause notice for the earlier period was issued to them. As such they were aware of their liability to discharge service tax and it cannot be said that they were entertaining any bonafide belief about their service tax liability. On further being questioned, Ld. Advocate has fairly agreed that they were not, during the period involved in the present appeal, filing any ST-3 returns so as to let the Revenue know about their tax liability. Only if the appellant would have filed the ST-3 returns and was not actually paid the service tax, their plea about the financial diffi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
