TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ablished that though they were raising invoices, they could not pay up the service tax liability as there was delay in getting payments from their customers. The appellants have filed returns during the disputed period but had not made disclosure with regard to the GTA services. Whether this was a bonafide belief or not cannot be decided in an ROM application - there is apparent error on the face of record in the observations noted by the Tribunal that the appellants have not filed any returns. In these circumstances, the entire penalty imposed cannot sustain, as they had filed returns. C F services - Delay in payment - HELD THAT:- The penalty imposed with regard to C F services requires to be set aside - The penalty in respect of GTA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 of the order observed that appellant has not filed the statutory returns as mandated by law and therefore proceeded to sustain the penalty imposed. He adverted to the relied upon documents of the SCN and submitted that as per Sl.No.5 of the Annexure to SCN, ST-3 returns for the disputed period 2009-10, 2010-11 is one of the category of documents relied on by the department for issuance of the SCN. It is therefore very much clear that appellant has filed returns. This being so, the Tribunal has erred in observing that the appellant has not filed returns for the disputed period. In fact, the Director, Mr. M. Venkataraman in his statement dt. 21.02.2011 had clarified that even though bills were raised along with service tax amount, the clie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellants have not filed returns during the disputed period and therefore has upheld the penalty imposed. 3.2 With regard to argument of the Ld. Counsel that ST-3 returns have been filed as shown in the RUD of the SCN, Ld. A.R submitted that it might have been an error while noting the RUD. The appellants have paid up the service tax along with interest only after being pointed out by the department. Therefore, they are guilty of suppression of facts with intent to evade tax which has been upheld by the Tribunal. She therefore pointed out that there being no error apparent on the face of record, ROM application may be dismissed. 4. Heard both sides. 5. On perusal of the final order impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts to be paid by Consignor or Consignee generally, but in some cases, on behalf of customers they are paying service tax under GTA. For the said reasons, they have not filed ST-3 Returns; Exact liability would be calculated and would be paid by 10th Feb 2011 and would file returns. The statement of Mr. M. Venkataraman, Director is also worthy of reproducing as under : Even though bills were raised along with service tax amount raised every month, the payments were not received by the company immediately The delay in receipt of payments and their commitments had posted great difficulties to run the business on day to day basis; Have paid service tax upto January ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
