9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts that arise for consideration are that the appellants M/s. Bangalore Vihara Kendra, No. 8, 9th Main, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bangalore-560 070 filed an appeal against Order-in-Original No. 84/2008-09, dated 7-7-2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax Division III, Bangalore under which the original authority had confirmed the Service Tax amounting to ₹ 3,91,978 along with interest of ₹ 55,131 and appropriated service tax amount of ₹ 3,91,978 and interest amount of ₹ 55,131 paid by the appellant and imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,000 along with mandatory penalty of ₹ 3,91,978 under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 respectively on the ground that the appellants have discharged the taxe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er submission that the appellant despite having taken registration has not discharged the service tax liability. It is her submission that the Adjudicating Authority has clearly recorded a finding that the appellant had suppressed the fact of providing the taxable service with intention to evade payment of service tax. It is her submission that provisions of section 73(3) will not be applicable as provisions of section 73(4) will be applicable in this case as there is suppression. 5. I have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. Appellant is not disputing the service tax liability and interest thereof, which has been discharged by them before the issuance of show-cause notice. However, the appellant is o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention to evade payment of service tax. Once the lapse was pointed out, the appellants discharged the service tax liability along with the interest. This fact has been taken into account by the lower authority. Moreover even section 73(3) provides waiver of show-cause notice when the assessee pays the service tax liability immediately after it is pointed out. These situations had been examined by this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Majestic Mobikes (P.) Ltd. [Final Order Nos. 652 to 672/2008, dated 30-5-2008] [2008 (11) S.T.R. 609 (Tribunal)] and the Tribunal had given a finding that where the original authority exercised his powers under section 80 of the Finance Act, after recording proper reasons, it cannot be reopened to enhance the penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
