TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant on his own to the Department. Resultantly, the same was never in notice of the Department unless and until they conducted the audit of appellants record and observed the impugned short levy. The appellant could have well complied with the above provision at the time of filing his return for the disputed period in November, 2012. The failure on his part amounts to violation of the provisions of the Act. Non-disclosure of the impugned admitted short-levy till the audit conducted by the Department is definitely a suppression of relevant fact arising out of appellants own fault. The possibility of said suppression with clear intention to evade the said short payment cannot therefore be ruled out. It is rather held that the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e rate of 12.36% for the impugned period. Since he has paid at the rate of 10.3%, the short payment of Service Tax for the aforesaid amount was proposed to be recovered from the appellant alongwith the interest at the appropriate rate and the proportionate penalty on account of wilful suppression of the fact of short payment of Service Tax with an intention to evade the same. The said recovery alongwith the interest and the penalty was confirmed vide order of Assistant Commissioner No.8595 dated 31/10/2016. Being aggrieved, the appeals were filed who vide order No.857 dated 28.03.2018 has upheld the confirmation of the demand. Being aggrieved the appellant is before the Tribunal. 2. I have heard Mr. Archit Upadhyay, ld. Advocate for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced emphasis on following judgements:- 1. Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company vs. CCE, Bombay 1995 (78) ELT 401 (SC) 2. Central Warehousing Corporation vs. CST, Ahmedabad 2016 (41) STR 106 (Tri.-Admd.) 3. Parul Associates Interiors Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Bangalore 2016 (46) STR 373 (Tri. Bang.) 5. Ld. D.R. while rebutting these arguments has submitted that even if the bonafide as pleaded by the appellant is taken into consideration, the facts remains is that the ST-3 Return for the period in dispute was filed in November, 2012. The enhancement came to the notice of the appellant since July, 2012 itself as is apparent from his own admission that he has started discharging his liability of Service Tax at the rate of 12.36% w.e.f. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effect. But the appellant opted to not to make good the short levy even at the time of filing his ST-3 Return in November, 2012. The said short payment was never subsequently informed by the appellant on his own to the Department. Resultantly, the same was never in notice of the Department unless and until they conducted the audit of appellants record and observed the impugned short levy. As per Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 and the Rules in this respect, the assessee has to self declare his liability and to self discharge the same, that too, by 7th day of the successor month. Further, as per Rule 6 (4) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 where the assessee is for any reason, unable to correctly estimate on the date of the deposit, the actual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
