TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 809X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant that they bona fidely believed that they are not liable to pay service tax but when the audit party raised the objection that they are liable to pay service tax, then they immediately paid the service tax along with interest which is admitted in the impugned order, is justified - Further except mere allegation of suppression, the Department did not bring any material to prove that there was suppression and concealment of facts to evade payment of tax. The imposition of penalty under Section 77 78 is not justified and bad in law - Penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 886 of 2012 - Final Order No. 20331/2020 - Dated:- 13-3-2020 - HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,911/- 68,48,564/- Total 1,31,70,733/- The Service Tax not paid was liable to be recovered from the assessee by invoking the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. On being pointed out by the Audit Party, the assessee accepted the contention of the audit and paid the Service Tax amount of ₹ 1,31,70,733/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty One Lakh Seventy Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Three only) vide GAR 7 challan No. 10014 dated 02.02.2011 along with interest of ₹ 2,12,92,351/- (Rupees Two Crore Twelve Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty One only) vide GAR 7 Challan dated 12.02.2011. Department entertained the view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law and accordingly not tenable in law. Learned consultant further submits that the amendment made in May 2008 under Section 67 related to payment of tax through entries in the books of accounts in respect of associated companies was not known to them. He further submitted that the original authority has not given any finding to the effect that the appellant has intentionally not paid the service tax. In support of his submission, the appellant has relied upon the following decisions: a. Bhoruka Aluminium Limited Vs. CCE ST, Mysore 2017 (51) S.T.R. 418 (Tri.-Bang) b. Intercontinental Consultants Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. V. U.O.I 2013 (29) S.T.R. 9 (Del.) c. Amit Sales V. CCE 2009 (13) S.T.R. 165 (Tri.-Del.) d. Jin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant cited supra, we find that Section 73(3) is very clear as it says that if a tax is paid along with interest before the issuance of show-cause notice, then in that case show-cause notice shall not be issued. In the present case, we find that the contention of the appellant that they bona fidely believed that they are not liable to pay service tax but when the audit party raised the objection that they are liable to pay service tax, then they immediately paid the service tax along with interest which is admitted in the impugned order, is justified. Further except mere allegation of suppression, the Department did not bring any material to prove that there was suppression and concealment of facts to evade payment of tax. Consequently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
