9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 1,90,902 and Rs. 2,56,833 for the period from 1-4-2000 to November, 2006 in respect of Rent-a-Cab services and for the period from 1-4-2004 to 31-3-2006 in respect of Business Auxiliary Services. They also paid the interest of Rs. 1,38,140 on 31-5-2006. A show-cause-notice dated 24-9-2007 was issued proposing to impose penalty under sections 76, 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994. Held that- I find that there is a contravention of the provisions of the Act with intent to evade payment of tax, so, the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly upheld the penalty under sections 77 and 78 of the Act. The appeal filed by the assessee has no merit. However the asseesee deposited entire amount of tax and interest before issue of show cause notice, in terms o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposed penalty of equal amount of tax of Rs. 4,44,735 under section 76, Rs. 1,000 under section 77 and equal amount of tax of Rs. 4,44,735 under section 78 of the Act. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalties under section 76 of the Act and upheld penalty under sections 77 and 78 of the Act. Hence, the assessee filed appeal against imposition of penalty under sections 77 and 78. Revenue filed appeal against setting aside of penalties under section 76 of the Act. 2. The ld. Chartered Accountant on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee entered into a lease agreement with M/s. Vindhyachal Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. in respect of rent-a-cab services. He submits that they were under impression that the rent-a-cab services would no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Khanna was the Director of the other Company. Thus, the plea of bona fide belief cannot be accepted. It is his contention that the Central Excise Officers detected the non-payment of tax and thereafter they are deposited the tax. He further submits that there is a delay of paying tax of about 7 years and section 80 cannot be invoked in this case. He also submits that it is a case of suppression of fact with intent to evade tax and section 73(3) of the Act cannot be applied. He further submits that the case law relied upon by the ld. Counsel would not apply in the facts of this case. 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of records, I find that M/s. Vindhyachal Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. registered with Service Tax Authorities in res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the order, the amount of penalty liable to be paid by such person shall be 25 per cent of the service tax so determined. In the present case, the assessee deposited the entire amount of tax and interest before issue of the show-cause notice and, therefore, an option should be given to the assessee by the adjudicating authority in terms of the said proviso before imposing penalty of equal amount. Hence, the penalty would be Rs. 1,11,184 (i.e. 25 per cent of the tax), if it is paid within 30 days from the date of communication of order, failing which, the assessee is liable to pay penalty of equal amount of tax so determined. 7. In view of the above observations, Appeal filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms. The ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
