TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht course of action would be to issue a Corrigendum to the demand and include the excess amount to the Notice before confirmation. Thus, the confirmation of duty in excess of the demand made in the notice is not sustainable. Accordingly, the confirmation of Service Tax of Rs.96,80,867/- as demanded in the Notice is upheld. Equal Penalty - HELD THAT:- The delay in payment was only due to financial crisis. In the show cause notice also there was no allegation of suppression of fact with intention to evade payment of service tax. Further, they stated that as they have paid the entire amount of service tax confirmed along with interest, they could have availed the SVLDRS Scheme, but could not do so due to illness and demise of one of the w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cords of the Appellant, it was noticed that during the Financial Year 2009-10, the Appellant has neither paid service tax nor filed service tax returns. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice dated 20.04.2011 was issued to the Appellant demanding service tax including Education Cess, totally amounting to Rs.96,80,867/-along with interest and penalty. The Notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 27.03.2012, wherein service tax of Rs.1,08,13,836/- was confirmed along with interest and equal amount of tax was also imposed as penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved against the impugned order, the Appellant has filed the present appeal. 2. In their submissions, the Appellant stated that the show cause notice was issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t there was no intention to evade payment of service tax. The delay in payment was only due to financial crisis. In the show cause notice also there was no allegation of suppression of fact with intention to evade payment of service tax. Further, they stated that as they have paid the entire amount of service tax confirmed along with interest, they could have availed the SVLDRS Scheme, but could not do so due to illness and demise of one of the working partners. Accordingly, they requested for waiver of penalty under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. The Ld.A.R. submitted that the adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand in excess of the demand made in the Notice because the same was admitted by the Appellant and the excess liab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. They contended that there was no intention to evade payment of service tax. They themselves declared their liability and the CERA Audit party arrived at the demand based on the records submitted by them. Out of the total demand of Rs.96,80,867/- made in the Notice, Rs.86,00,867/- was paid before issue of the Notice. As per their calculation, they themselves admitted a higher liability of Rs.1,08,13,836/- as against the demand of Rs.96,80,867/- made in the Notice. The balance amount was also paid subsequently along with interest. The delay in payment was only due to financial crisis. In the show cause notice also there was no allegation of suppression of fact with intention to evade payment of service tax. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
