TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rns or paid service tax thereon. When the return has to be filed by the appellant, it is expected that they reflect the correct figures in the returns and not by doing so, they have suppressed the value of the services and thereby evaded payment of service tax. Therefore, penalty is imposable under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for not payment of service tax - Penalty is also correctly imposed under section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. ST/31124/2016 - Final Order No. A/30645/2018 - Dated:- 26-6-2018 - Hon ble Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member ( Technical ) S/Shri B. Venugopal Joseph K. Antony, Advocates for the Appellant Shri B.Guna Ranjan, Superintendent /AR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le value including the service tax. Reckoning this amount as the tax cum value, he reckoned the service tax liability by calculating backwards. Accordingly, he confirmed the demand of only ₹ 2,76,702/- in respect of the airport services rendered by the appellant along with interest. He further imposed a penalty equivalent to the service tax amount under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for contravention of provisions of Section 68 with an intention to evade payment of service tax. He further imposed a penalty of ₹ 10,000/- on them under section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the Order-in-Original entirely and rejected the appeal. This appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that merely not accurately reflecting the figures in the ST-3 returns because of following the wrong system of accounting should not be construed as suppression of facts. Accordingly, no penalty should be imposed on them. He relied on the following case laws: (a) CCE Salem vs. JSW Steel Ltd. [2017(6)G.S.T.L. 397(Mad.)] (b) Om Sai Professional Detective Security Service Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Guntur [2008(12)S.T.R. 79(Tri.-Bang.)] (c) Ram Krishna Travels Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE Vadodara [2007(6)STR 37 (Tri.-Mum.)] (d) CCE, Trichy vs. Rasi Travels Cargo Pvt. Ltd. [2008(11)STR 378 (Tri.-Chennai) (e) CCE, Tirunelveli vs. Ashok Security Services [2008(9) STR 359 (Trib.-Chennai) (f) CST vs. Skematic Consultants [2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dhiana [2016(46)S.T.R 547 (Tri.-Del.)] (c) CCE Rajkot vs. Ashish Anand Co. [2013(31)STR 26 (Tri.-Ahmd)] 6. I have gone through the records of the case and considered the submissions on both sides including the case laws they relied upon. It is not in dispute that appellant had not discharged the full service tax liability by not disclosing the full value of the services rendered by them in their ST- 3 returns. It is only the investigation of the department which revealed the true value. I find no reason to agree with the Counsel for the appellant that this case should be remanded back to the original authority. Firstly, once a show cause notice is issued, the original authority or the appellate authority cannot go beyond the sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
