9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity and imposed penalty under section 78 on the assesesee. Held that- levy of manpower recruitment and supply agency was introduced on 16.6.2005. The assessee was an individual person and supplied manpower to the limited company. It was noted that as soon as, it had come to the knowledge of the assessee, he had paid the tax along with interest. The assesese was not disputing the deposit of tax with interest. There was no material available on suppression of facts with intend to evade payment of duty. In any event, the levy was introduced on 16.6.2005 and the delay of payment of tax was not deliberate and, therefore, the original authority rightly invoked section 80, thus the order of Commissioner was to be set aside. The order of the origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the demand of tax is for the extended period and, therefore, the imposition of penalty under section 78 of the Act is warranted. He cited the case-law referred in the grounds of appeal. He also submits that Central Excise Officers detected non-payment of tax and suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. 3. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, for proper appreciation of fact, the finding of the original authority is reproduced below : "It is true that the Noticee had not discharged the service tax liability and it is also true that the same being not pointed out by the preventive officers of the Central Excise divis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e above order, the Commissioner has not disputed the reasons of the adjudicating authority. The contention of the learned SDR is that the demand has been confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation meaning thereby the non-payment of tax with intent to evade payment of duty. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned SDR. It is seen that levy of manpower recruitment and supply agency was introduced on 16-6-2005. The appellant is an individual person and supplied manpower to the limited company. It is noted that as soon as it has come to the knowledge of the appellant, he has paid the tax along with interest. They are not disputing the deposit of tax with interest. The sub-section (3) of section 73 of the Act provides tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
