9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 100 - AT - Service TaxRenting of cabs - evasion of tax - suppression of facts - Held that - It is therefore evident that the appellants have resorted to suppression with an intent to evade service tax. As for the plea of the appellants that there were calculation errors and change of duty, given the above finding of deliberate suppression, the plea of calculation errors and bona fide mistake is not tenable. In any event, it was responsibility to the appellants to calculate and apply the rate correctly. Benefit of reduced mandatory penalty - option of 25% of penalty within 30 days - Held that - the question of reduced penalty by the Tribunal was examined by this Tribunal in BSL Vs. CCE, Jaipur-II 2016 (6) TMI 74 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , wherein it was held that Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of Ratnamani Metals & Tubes 2013 (12) TMI 1397 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , no longer remains good law and therefore, can no longer be followed while the law laid down by Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajshree Dyg. & Ptg. Mills (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner 2014 (9) TMI 291 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , becomes good and binding law to be followed - benefit of reduced mandatory penalty cannot be extended to the appellants. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 276/CE/CHD-I/09 dated 28/07/2009 - Contesting imposition of penalty - Allegations of evasion of Service Tax - Submission of financial records - Calculation errors in tax cess and duty valuation - Suppression and intent to evade tax - Comparison of amounts received and declared - Plea for reduced penalty - Benefit of reduced penalty under Section 11AC - Interpretation of relevant judgments Analysis: The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 276/CE/CHD-I/09 dated 28/07/2009, where the appellants contested the imposition of penalty but did not contest the confirmed demand related to alleged evasion of Service Tax. The appellants were accused of deliberately withholding financial records and not cooperating with the authorities during the investigation. The investigating officers had to collect information from various BSNL offices to calculate the tax demand. The authorities found discrepancies between the amounts received from BSNL and the amounts declared in the balance sheets, indicating suppression and an intent to evade tax. The appellants argued that the discrepancies were due to genuine calculation errors resulting from changes in service tax rates over the years. They relied on a Tribunal judgment and a High Court case to support their plea for a reduced penalty. However, the Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty, citing the deliberate suppression of information by the appellants. The Tribunal noted that the appellants did not provide necessary information for tax calculation, even though BSNL payments were made on pre-receipted bills. Regarding the plea for reduced penalty, the Tribunal referred to a previous case and discussed the interpretation of relevant judgments from different High Courts. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the benefit of reduced mandatory penalty could not be extended to the appellants based on the precedents and legal principles discussed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the penalty imposed by the authorities. In summary, the judgment highlighted the importance of cooperation with authorities during investigations, the consequences of deliberate suppression of information, and the limitations on seeking reduced penalties based on legal precedents and interpretations of relevant judgments.
|
