Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (2) TMI 897

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ginal authorities view with one s own by exercising its appellate jurisdiction. The exception would be if the impugned order is demonstrably found as not being rational or reasonable or is suffering from procedural impropriety. Which is not the case here. In the circumstances, the show cause notice having been issued invoking the extended time limit under proviso to section 73 (1) of the Finance Act 1994 and the imposition of penalty cannot be said to be unwarranted. In the instant case where suppression of facts has been alleged in the Show Cause Notice, the appellant has not paid the reduced penalty as is required by law along with tax and interest, however the same facility has still been extended to them by the original authority in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... devi Taritla, ADC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is filed by M/s. Nebula Computers Pvt. Ltd. against Order in Original No. 05/2012 dated 15.2.2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai IV Commissionerate. 2. M/s. Nebula Computers Pvt. Ltd. are rendering the services of Manpower Recruitment and Supply Services. The accounts / records of the assessee were taken up for audit by the Internal Audit of the Service Tax Commissionerate, Chennai, during which it was noticed that the assessee had rendered the services of manpower recruitment agency and realized an amount of Rs.4,90,79,293/- for the period from April 2009 to January 2010 but did not pay the service tax of Rs.50,55,167/- collected from their custom .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... evenue has stated that this is a clear cut case of evasion as the appellant had collected tax from the public but failed to deposit it to the Government exchequer. Further, they had also withheld the information by not filing the ST-3 returns for the period from March 2009 to September 2009. Hence the confirmation of demand and interest along with imposition of penalty is justified. 6. We find that the appellant is not contesting the demand for tax and interest but is only aggrieved by imposition of fine and penalty. The fact that the appellant has collected Service tax from the recipients of service but not having deposited it into the government exchequer is not contested by them. They are pleading financial hardship for not paying the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es we find that the show cause notice having been issued invoking the extended time limit under proviso to section 73 (1) of the Finance Act 1994 and the imposition of penalty cannot be said to be unwarranted. The appellants plea that once the service tax along with interest is paid before the issue of show cause notice then the entire proceeding is deemed to have been concluded, depends on the facts and circumstances of each individual case. They have cited both circular and F No 137/167/2006-C.Ex dated 03/10/2007 and certain judgements in furtherance of their plea. It is seen that the circular dated 03/10/2007 clearly states that section 73(1A) of the Finance Act, 1994 provides for conclusion of adjudication proceedings in the case of wil .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lector of Central Excise, Bombay reported in 1994 (9) TMI 86, the Hon ble Supreme Court noted that it was a case where the goods were thought to be exempt from duty, whereas in the instant matter the taxability of the service during the relevant period is not under challenge. The judgements cited are hence not relevant in the appellant s case. 8. In the circumstances, undue sympathy to impose an adequate penalty would undermine the efficacy of law and encourage other tax payers to avoid paying taxes on time while waiting for if and until they have been found to have evaded duty by the department to pay their taxes. The appeal is hence devoid of merit and is rejected. The impugned order is upheld. (Pronounced in court on 22.02.2023) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates