TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of service tax especially when the same is collected from the service recipient - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - ST/26989/2013-SM - 21015/2017 - Dated:- 6-3-2017 - Shri SS Garg, Judicial Member Shri Kashinath Kalmath, Advocate - For the Appellant Shri N. Jagdish, Superintendent (AR) - For the Respondent Per : SS GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 03.04.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are registered with the Department under the category Commercial Buildings Civil Structures and Manpower Recruitment Supply Ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that there is no suppression of fact because the appellant has filed ST-3 Return on 25.04.2011 wherein total taxable service was shown as ₹ 78,11,785/- (Rupees Seventy Eight Lakhs Eleven Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Five only) and the total tax paid with interest as ₹ 2,23,160/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand One Hundred and Sixty only). On perusal of the ST-3 Return, the Range Officer found that there is a short payment of ₹ 5,84,502/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand Five Hundred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Thousand One Hundred and Thirteen only) for the period 01.10.2010 to 31.12.2010 as per ST-3 Return. He further submitted that the financial difficulty is no ground for non-payment of service tax which has been collected by the appellant. In support of his submission, the learned AR relied upon the following decisions: a) Ketan Engineering Services Pvt Ltd Vs. CCE ST, Surat 2014 (36) S.T.R. 196 (Tri. -Ahmd.) b) Bajrang Security Services Vs. CST, Ahmedabad 2010 (19) S.T.R. 577 (Tri. -Ahmd.) c) Triton Communication Pvt Ltd Vs. CCE, Mumbai 2007 (6) S.T.R. 58 (Tri. -Mumbai) d) Sai Machine Tools Pvt Ltd. Vs. CCE and Cus., Indore - 2006 (203) E.L.T. 15 (M.P) e) 3 Guys Vs. CCE, Haldia 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akhs Fifty Seven Thousand and Sixty Nine only) imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act. Further I also find that in the case of IWI Crogenic Vaporization System India Vs. CCE Cus. and ST, Vadodara-II 2015-TIOL-1458-CESTAT-AHM, this Tribunal has held that if the service tax has been recovered from the recipient and not paid the same to the Department, it tantamounts to intention to evade duty. Further in the case of Triton Communication Pvt. Ltd. cited supra , this Tribunal has held that financial crisis is not a reasonable cause for non-payment of service tax especially when the same is collected from the service recipient. Further I find that the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the appellant is not applicable in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
