TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred in the corrigendum notice, it cannot be said that the ingredient of allegations made in the show-cause notice has not made out a case under Section 73(1). It is a settled principle of law that wrong mentioning of appropriate charging sections or provisions will not vitiate the proceedings, if ingredients of the provision is well made out in the charge. However, having record to the fact that Commissioner had not dealt with the penalty aspect as well as extended period, and department has not appealed against it, finding on penalty is not given here, though a clear case of extended period is well made out, in view of the suppression by the appellant in collecting the Service Tax from the service receiver and not crediting the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice and duty demand under Section 73(1) was made by notice dated 27.03.2012 which was corrected as Section 73(1A) of the Finance Act, 1994 through a corrigendum issued on 17.04.2012. Appellant offered no response to such notice for which matter was adjudicated. In two rounds of litigations, duty demand of ₹ 92,118/- was confirmed under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide above referred order. Appellant assailed the said order in this appeal. 3. In the memo of appeal and during the course of hearing of appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. M. D. Sathe submitted that small scale exemption as per amended Notification No. 05/2008 was not extended to the appellant and without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and addendum to it, indicates that appellant had taken Service Tax registration and signed commission documents issued by M/s TTML in which service tax component has been specifically segregated. It further admitted in page 7(2) of the appeal memo that appellant had not respondent to the letters of the respondent and kept mum that resulted in confirmation of the duty demand. However, contention of the appellant regarding non-applicability of duty demands on its two primarily. First, show-cause notice was not issued under Section 73(1) under which demand was confirmed and Section 73(1A) was not in existence during the relevant period. Second, prosecution had not established the case against the appellant in producing the witness for cross ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that appellant had collected the Service Tax which is established through his signature made on the commission statement obtained by the M/s TTML which remains unchallenged, it cannot discharge its tax liability just by making bald statement that such signature was obtained on nil tax documents. However, having record to the fact that Commissioner had not dealt with the penalty aspect as well as extended period, and department has not appealed against it, finding on penalty is not given here, though a clear case of extended period is well made out, in view of the suppression by the appellant in collecting the Service Tax from the service receiver and not crediting the same to the Government treasury. Hence the order. ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
