TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ges in their ST.3 Return. They have also not declared the correct receipt of the service charges in their Income Tax Return, therefore the malafide intention of the appellant is clearly established, accordingly the demand cannot be set aside on the ground of time bar. Penalties u/s 76, 77 & 78 - Held that: - penalties u/s 76 set aside - penalties u/s 77 and 78 upheld. Appeal allowed in part. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice was issued to the appellant and the same was adjudicated whereby the demand of Service tax amounting to ₹ 8,64,023/- along with interest was confirmed penalty imposed under Section 76, 77 penalty of equal amount was also imposed under Section 78. Being aggrieved by the order-in-original, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order-in-original. However ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded in the case of All India Fedn. Of Tax Practitioners Vs Union of India - 2007 (7) STR 625 (SC). He placed reliance on the following judgements: (i) Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III Vs. Dige Associates Pvt. Ltd. - 2009 ) STR 364 (Tri.-Mumbai) (ii) Commissioner Vs. Coastal Energy Pvt. Ltd. - 2016 (340) ELT A204 (S.C.) (iii) Coramandel Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . He further submits that the appellant have been collecting the service tax but were not depositing to the Government account they have also not shown in respect of service in their Income Tax Returns, therefore malafide intention is clearly proved for evasion of service tax. Therefore neither the demand is time bar nor the penalty can be waived. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
