9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by them. Subsequently, assesese paid balance of service tax. Original authority apart from confirming demand of duty, imposed penalty. Held that - since it was a clear case of suppression of value of taxable service to department, penalty u/s 78 was warranted. - ST/663 OF 2009-SM(BR) - 286 OF 2010-SM(BR) - Dated:- 4-3-2010 - M. VEERAIYAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER Rohit Raju for the Appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d penalty of Rs. 83,638 under section 78 of the Finance Act for wilfully concealing the value of taxable services. The Original Authority also imposed a penalty of Rs. 41,819 under section 76 of the Finance Act for the delay in payment of service tax. 4. Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that the proprietor of the appellant firm was busy in looking after his ailing father and employee has c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons from both sides. It is a clear case of suppression of value of taxable services to the department. The explanation given for short payment of tax attributing negligence to the employee is clearly not acceptable. It is seen that the appellant has collected the service charges from the clients along with service tax and true service charge figures were available from the records of MSO. Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
