TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Such documents revealed the suppression of value of taxable services rendered during the impugned period to the tune of ₹ 23,59,962/. Hence, in the SCN, the provisions of extended period have been correctly invoked. As such, the SCN has been issued within the statutory limit prescribed by the Act. As there is clear suppression, the penalty u/s 78 ibid has been correctly imposed on the appellant - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/759/2009 - A/61394/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 25-7-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Sh. Gourav Aggrawal, Advocate for the Appellant Sh. H. Singh, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per: Devender Singh The brief facts are th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was no wrong intention on the part of the appellant. He also submitted a calculation sheet showing the service tax of reimbursement allowed by Commissioner (Appeals). He submitted that they had paid part of the tax, which has been appropriated in order-in-original itself. He requested for taking a lenient view on the penalty. He relied upon the case of CCE, Jalandhar Vs. Darmania Telecom - 2009(14) STR 145(P H). 4. Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and pointed out that the appellant was neither registered nor were they paying their service tax liability and there was suppression of facts on the part of the appellant as Department detected the evasion on basis of documents produced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Commissioner in revision proceedings. It was held by the Hon ble High Court that as the order-in-original did not record any finding of fraud, misstatement etc. envisaged by Section 78 of the Finance Act 1994, revisional authority could not acquire the powers of Section 78 in the absence of any evidence produced. In the present case, the adjudicating authority has given a finding of suppression and it is not a case of revision. Therefore, the ratio of above judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. 7. In view of the foregoing, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and the same is upheld. 8. The appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. (Operative part of the order pronounced in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
