9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. Srinivasa, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M. Ravi Rajendran, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. The appellants, M/s. Lion Security Services were engaged in rendering Security Agency Services during the period October 2003 to September 2005 and did not follow the statutory formalities as regards filing of ST-3 returns and payment of service tax. The assessee was registered with the department as a provider of security agency service. A notice was issued on 10-11-2005 proposing to recover service tax not paid during the material period and to penalize the appellant for its failure to follow the statutory formalities. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand of service tax under the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of time. Further, it is also observed that the appellant is seeking often extension of time even at the appellate stage which is not permitted. The appeal is taken up for decision on merits. It is seen from the impugned order that the appellant has paid the service tax for the disputed period. In the instant case the only issue involved is with regard to imposition of penalty under Section 76, 77 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for delayed payment of Service Tax, late filing of ST 3 returns. I find that the appellant has not complied with the order for pre-deposit of amount vide Stay Order No. 79/2008, dated 22-12-2008 and I conclude that the imposition of the penalties in the impugned order is in order. In the appeal filed before the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king a provision, namely Section 72 of the Act, which was not in existence on the date of issue of the show cause notice. Therefore the demand was not validly raised. Since the demand was confirmed by invoking a non-existing provision, the demand cannot survive. In the absence of a legally sustainable demand, there cannot be penalties imposed on the assessee. I find merit in these arguments raised by the appellants. However, I find that the findings in the impugned order reproduced above do not deal with the assessee s penal liability properly and there is no speaking order in this regard. In the circumstances, the penalty liability of the assessee is remanded for a fresh decision by the Commissioner (Appeals) after following principles of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
