TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovided that the provisions under Sub-section (3) to said Section 73 are not applicable where non-payment of service tax is on account of suppression of facts. The appellant had not filed ST-3 returns for the impugned period till 20/01/2012 nor paid service tax of ₹ 1.85 crores and the said short payment was detected through an enquiry by Revenue. Therefore, Sub-section 3 of Section 73 of Fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants were providing various services to Delhi Development Authority. Appellants were duly registered with Service Tax Department under the category of Business Exhibition Service , Erection, Commissioning Installation Service and Works Contract Service . They provided services to Delhi Development Authority and the same were utilized for preparation of Commonwealth Games. It was noticed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01/2012 after initiation of enquiry. Through said show cause notice a demand of ₹ 1.85 crores of service tax for the period from 01/04/2010 to 30/11/2010 was raised by invoking proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 with proposal to appropriate service tax paid and interest paid and with proposal to impose penalties. The said show cause notice was adjudicated through i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Sub-section (4) of Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 it is provided that the provisions under Sub-section (3) to said Section 73 are not applicable where non-payment of service tax is on account of suppression of facts. We note that the appellant had not filed ST-3 returns for the impugned period till 20/01/2012 nor paid service tax of ₹ 1.85 crores and the said short payment was detected t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se because in the said case suppression was not alleged. Further relied upon another Final Order of this Tribunal reported at 2008-TIOL-2286-CESTAT-BANG is also not applicable in the present case since there is no reference to Sub-section (4) which has debarred Sub-section (3) of Section 73 in case there is suppression. In view of the above findings, we do not find any infirmity with the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
