9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /-. While doing so, the Dy. Commissioner has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 77 and a penalty equivalent to 50% of tax liability under Section 78(1) of Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the demand of service tax and the penalty imposed under Section 78(1) and dropped the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Act. 2. Heard Shri Prasad Tendulkar, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Shri Dilip Shinde, Authorised Representative on behalf of Revenue. 3. While arguing on behalf of the appellant, learned Counsel submitted that there is no dispute in respect of the demand of tax which were discharged along with interest due and presently the appeal is directed only against the penalty imposed on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd doubt that the said service provider had evaded service tax amounting to Rs. 13,05,472/- by suppressing the value of taxable service with intent to evade payment realized towards the value of taxable service-Erection, commissioning or installation service was not self assessed and were not reflected in St-3 returns filed by them. Section 76, 77 and 78 of Finance Act provided mandatory penalties for failure to pay service tax within stipulated time, for failure to self assess the service tax and to reflect the correct value of taxable service and for suppressing the taxable value respectively as words and phrases "shall pay a penalty", "shall liable to pay penalty" have been used in all the sections quoted above. The assessee is contestin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ully gone through the records of the case, the submissions made by the Appellant and the case laws on which the Appellant has placed reliance. The issue involved in non-payment of Service Tax by the Appellant on services obtained from abroad under Reverse Charge Payment basis. The Appellant is not contesting the demand and has already paid the Service Tax demand, which have been appropriated against the demand by the Respondent. However, I find that as per the records of the case, the Appellant has not paid the interest and the 50% penalty imposed under the first proviso to Section 78 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994. From the records of the case, I find that this is a clear case of evasion of Service Tax liability under Reverse Charge Mechanis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 75 of the Act. However, I am inclined to set aside the penalty amount of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 77 of the Act as the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Act is sufficient in the circumstances of the case. 6.2 There has been no challenge in the present case with regard to the finding in respect of mens rea evasion of tax etc. and both the authorities have concluded that there was enough mens rea in the present case for suppressing the value of the services received and not payment of tax. While doing so, both the authorities have also considered the plea of revenue neutrality. Without proper challenge to such a finding with regard to the malafide intent, the appellant cannot challenge the imposition of penalty and claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
