9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supply Agency Services", for which they had submitted ST-3 returns; the non payment of service tax during the impugned period came to the light only as a result of audit checks conducted by the departmental officer; they have failed to intimate that the activities amounting to 'Cleaning services', which was based on a contract they had entered into with M/s. ONGC; the entire service tax liability for providing 'cleaning services' was not paid by the appellant till it was detected in the audit checks and there fore extended period is invokable and imposition of penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994, on the ground of suppression of facts, is valid and proper. The learned Commissioner has also observed that adjudicating authority has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f relevant clauses of Finance Act, 1994, the appellants also impressed upon that the impugned order is culminated out of the audit; however, audit officers themselves were not sure whether the activities undertaken by the appellants are covered under "Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency service" or "Cleaning services". In support of the same, appellants annexed the copy of audit report with the appeal memorandum. In the appeal memorandum, the audit officer have mentioned that the appellant was providing 'Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service' whereas the show cause notice was issued alleging that the appellants were providing 'Cleaning services'. Thus, in such a state of confusion amongst the officers of the audit party, it is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e law on 10-5-2008, which provides that penalty under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 can not be imposed simultaneously, the same shall also be applicable in those cases where the period of dispute is prior to the said date i.e. 10-5-2008. 7. In view of the above, I find that though in the appeal before me, the period in dispute is prior to 10-5-2008, the penalty under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be imposed simultaneously. 8. However, I find that Commissioner (Appeals) while passing the impugned order has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of C.C.E. v. Krishna Poduval [2006 (1) S.T.R. 185 (Ker.)] and observed that imposition of penalty simultaneously under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considering the fact that the issue pertains to interpretation of definition of 'Cleaning services', out of total proposed demand of Rs. 8,80,405/-, learned adjudicating authority has confirmed demand of Rs. 4,40,739/- only. Therefore, it concludes that issue involved is precisely on interpretation of definition of 'Cleaning Activities/services' only. Further, as rightly pointed out by the appellant that the audit officers themselves were confused whether the activities undertaken by the appellant was covered under cleaning services or under the 'Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency services", as can be seen from the perusal of the audit report annexed with the appeal memo, I find that issue involves on the interpretation of relevant cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
