9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice tax, the officers of DGCEI, took up investigation. On verification of records, it was noticed that the appellants collected service tax on Man-power Supply Service but failed to remit the same to Government account. Accordingly, show-cause notice dated 25.08.2009 was issued demanding service tax for the period from June, 2005 to March, 2008. It was also proposed to impose penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and, inter alia, imposed equal penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved, the appellants are now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellants, the learned counsel Shri J. Shankar Raman argued only on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision in the case of M/s. V.N.K. Menon & Co., Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore reported in 2010 (257) E.L.T.427 (T), which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court as reported in M/s. V.N.K. Menon & Co., Vs CESTAT, Chennai reported in 2015 (323) E.L.T.524 (Mad.). Moreover, that appellants had paid substantial amount much before issuance of the show-cause notice. Alternatively, it was argued that the issue involved is one of interpretation and, therefore, penalties may be waived invoking section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. The learned Authorised Representative Ms. T. Usha Devi DC (AR) for the Revenue supported the findings in the impugned order. She submitted that though appellants have given a letter dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. They have also put forward their doubt with regard to whether service tax is payable on salary. Thus, it is very much clear from this letter that the department has come to know about the details of the services rendered by the appellants. The extended period has been invoked alleging suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of service tax. When the appellants have furnished details on 15.09.2006, then the show-cause notice ought to have been issued within one year from the date of such knowledge received by the department. On the peculiar set of facts presented by appellants on the case, when the department has come to know about the contract agreement between the appellants and their clients, showing details of services rende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as all the activities of the appellant/assessee came to light based on investigation by the Department and recording of statement in August, 1996. Therefore, for the period prior to August, 1996, the department was justified in invoking the plea of suppression for larger period. The findings recorded by the Tribunal insofar as the period prior to August, 1996 and post August, 1996 stems from strong judicial reasoning and, this Court is of the considered view that there is no error on record warranting interference with the well considered finding of the Tribunal." 6. From the above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the demand for the period 15.09.2006 to 31.03.2008 cannot sustain and requires to be set aside, which we here ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
