9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d April 2008 to September 2010, the appellant had collected service tax but had not remitted the same to the Government Account. It was also noticed that they had delayed the payment of service tax for earlier period from October 2007 to March 2008. Show cause notices were issued to the appellant demanding service tax along with interest and also for imposing penalty. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and imposed penalties. In appeal No. ST/555/2011, penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act is imposed whereas in Appeal Nos. ST/68 & 69/2012, penalty under section 76 is imposed. Aggrieved, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 2. The ld. counsel Shri G.Natarajan submitted that the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and non-receipt of amounts from certain airlines. He prayed that Section 80 of the Finance Act may be invoked to set aside the penalties. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 41943/2018 dated 28.6.2018 in the case of Dusters total Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai. 3. The ld. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy supported the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the appellant has collected the service tax and has not paid it to the Central Government. Therefore, they are guilty of suppression of facts and therefore penalty imposed under section 78 in Appeal No. ST/555/2011 is legal and proper. So also they have delayed the payment of service tax and therefore they are li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amounts received from the customers were always less than the amounts to be spent by them and the difference was to be arranged through loan. The secured loans increased from 11.62 crores in April 2008 to 12.46 crores in March 2009 and unsecured loans increased from Rs. 76.67 lakhs to Rs. 97.78 lakhs; that sundry debtors have gone up from 4.43 crores to 7.56 crores during the same period. They furnished documents to establish these facts. Thus the delay / non-payment of service tax cannot be said, is an act of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of tax. In fact, the demand has been raised on the basis of figures furnished by appellant and department has no allegation of any deliberate act done to evade payment of tax. For t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
