9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice tax from their service recipients, but failed to pay the same to the Government within the prescribed time. They failed to file the statutory ST-3 returns as required under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. 2.2 A Show Cause Notice was issued proposing to demand the short-paid service tax along with interest and also for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the Original Authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 4,79,080/- along with interest and imposed equal penalty under Section 78 of the Act. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence, this appeal. 3.1 On behalf of the appellant, Ld. Counsel Ms. Kanthai Visalakshi appeared and argued the matter. She submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terprises Vs. Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise, Chennai vide Final Order Nos. 42768-42769/2018 dated 23.10.2018. 3.4 It is submitted by her that apart from a bald allegation that the appellant has suppressed facts, the Department has not adduced any evidence to show that the appellant has committed any positive act of suppression with intention to evade payment of service tax. 4.1 Ld. AR Ms. T. Usha Devi appeared and argued the matter on behalf of the respondent. She submitted that this is a case wherein the appellant has collected the tax and has not paid the same to the Government. This is a clear case of suppression of facts. The appellant would not have paid up the amount but for the interference of the Department. 4.2 She arg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tours (I) Pvt. Ltd. - 2015 (38) S.T.R. 227 (Mad.) held that when the assessee faced financial crisis due to criminal breach of trust committed by their sub-agent and thereafter paid the service tax voluntarily, the penalties imposed should have been rightly set aside by invoking Section 80 of the Act. 9. From the foregoing discussions, we are of the opinion that the penalty imposed under Section 78 ibid is unwarranted and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. The penalty imposed under Section 77 ibid, however, is not interfered with. The impugned Order is modified to the extent of setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 78 ibid only without disturbing the demand of service tax, interest or the penalty imposed under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
