TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Service Tax to the extent of Rs.4,96,711/- has come to light. As a matter of fact, since the Appellant have been providing services even prior to 2007-08, (during 2002 to 2007) the Service Tax liability could not be recovered by the Department as the period was even beyond the extended period of five years. Therefore, it is not a case of mere interpretation or bonafide belief but the case wherein the Appellant did not get themselves registered and did not make disclosure of all their activities to the Department. Extended period of limitation - penalty - HELD THAT:- There are no merits in the submissions made by the Appellant that there is no suppression and hence the extended period could not have been invoked for raising the demand a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the Appellant was issued Show Cause Notice for having undertaken various Works Contract Services during the period 2007-08 to 2011-12. The Show Cause Notice alleged that the Appellant did not take the Service Tax registration, nor paid the Service Tax nor filed the Service Tax Returns. Since the entire details of services provided by them came to the knowledge of the Department by way of verification and investigation, the Department viewed that the same amounted to suppression on the part of the Appellant and demand for the extended period was issued for the Service Tax of Rs.11,49,034/-. After due process, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand. The Appellant filed an Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). After going th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Appellant. Therefore, he held that the penalty imposed under Section 78 cannot be waived and did not interfere with the decision of the Adjudicating Authority and rejected the Appellant s Appeal. Being aggrieved, the Appellant is before the Tribunal. 6. As per the factual matrix discussed above, initially, the Department has gone through the Appellants records for the period 2007-08 to 2011-12 and issued Show Cause Notice for Rs.11,49,034/-. In the Denovo Adjudication, the Adjudicating Authority has re-quantified the Service Tax and held that the Appellant is required to pay 4,96,711/-. As per the OIA, the Appellant did not contest this amount and were only contesting the penalty imposed under Section 78 before the Commissioner (Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11/- has come to light. As a matter of fact, since the Appellant have been providing services even prior to 2007-08, (during 2002 to 2007) the Service Tax liability could not be recovered by the Department as the period was even beyond the extended period of five years. Therefore, it is not a case of mere interpretation or bonafide belief but the case wherein the Appellant did not get themselves registered and did not make disclosure of all their activities to the Department. 9. From the Appeal records, it is seen that even when the Appellant has filed the present Appeal in March 2018 they still have not obtained the Service Tax Registration Number as they have cited Assessee Code as ADKPM2374GSD001. Such registration is granted to Deale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
