TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry which itself shows that there was malafide intention to evade payment of service tax. The appellant was registered with the Service Tax Department and was very well aware of their liability to pay service tax to the Govt. The appellant has not been able to give any reasonable explanation as to why the service tax was not deposited in the Govt. Treasury. It is evident that neither Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) nor the tribunal have considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and by a cryptic and cavalier manner have decided the appeals - the impugned orders passed by Assistant Commissioner, Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and the tribunal therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law - the matter i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tified in law in not holding that the penalty under section 76 and 78 of the Act cannot be imposed on the facts and circumstances of the case. (4) Whether the show cause notice issued by invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to section 73(1) of Act is valid in law on the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that appellant is a proprietorship concern and was engaged in production of serial 'Bhakti Samachara' on Zee TV Kannada Channel at the rate of ₹ 7,000/- per episode. The appellant applied for registration on 21.02.2007 under the service tax for providing service of TV / radio program production. A certificate of registration was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t did not deposit the service tax and affirming the penalties levied under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Act. It is further submitted that appellant is not liable to pay penalty under the aforesaid provisions as he had shown a reasonable cause as provided under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 and also had paid the entire service tax along with interest to show his bonafides. It is further submitted that initiation of proceeding for penalty is bad in law as service tax was already paid. It is also urged that the Assistant Commissioner erred in issuing the show cause notice by invoking the extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act and failed to appreciate that the appellant is not liable to pay the penalty und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH VS. STESALIT LIMITED', CIVIL APPEAL NO.4507/2004, 'COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX VS. LARK CHEMICALS P. LTD.', CIVIL APPEAL NO.3890/2011', 'COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA VS. PLAXAIR INDIA PVT. LTD.', (2012) 278 ELT 579', 'UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS AND OTHERS', (2008) 13 SCC 369', 'UNION OF INDIA VS. RAJASTHAN SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS', (2009) 13 SCC 448', 'COMMR.OF C.EX., BANGALORE - II VS. ALSTHOM INSTRUMENT TRANSFORMERS', (2015) 322 ELT 297', and 'C.C.E. AND S.T., LTU VS. KARNATAKA SOAPS AND DETERGENTS LTD.', CEA NO.125 OF 2007. 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax of Rs,56304/- but not deposited to the Government exchequer till the time department intervened. He has also not filed the specified returns. No act can be as grave at this and entails heavy penal provision. The appellant cannot be said to be ignorant once he has collected tax and financial hardship cannot be presumed on ground that serial is stopped. The reasonable cause as enshrined in Section 80 remains unestablished. CESTAT in case if Pandurang Travels vs. CCE (2009) 21 STT 254 (CESTAT) and Modern Bank vs. CCE (2010) STT r12 (CESTAT SMB) has held that strict penalty is imposable in cases where Service Tax is collected but not paid. Further penalties under Section 76 and Section 78 are also imposable as offence is made prior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
