9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istant Commissioner had confirmed a demand of Rs. 1,03,009/- against the assessee (respondent) towards service tax and education cesses under the head Goods Transport Agent's Service (GTA service for short) for the period from January 2005 to March 2008 and had also demanded interest thereon and had also imposed late fee' of Rs. 14,000/- on the assessee. The full payments made by the assessee towards service tax + education cesses, interest thereon and late fee were also appropriated by the adjudicating authority. Though, in the show-cause notice, there was a proposal to impose penalties on the assessee under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act 1994, none of these penalties was imposed by the adjudicating autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proposing penalties under Sections 76 to 78 of the Act. What happened subsequently has already been noted hereinbefore. 4. After hearing the learned Additional Commissioner (AR), I note that, as regards Section 78 penalty, the case of the appellant is that this is not a fit case for grant of the benefit of Section 80 of the Act to the assessee. The appellant submits that the respondent had an intention to evade payment of service tax and hence suppressed material facts. It is submitted that the respondent did not care to obtain registration for payment of service tax on GTA service and also did not file service tax returns for the period of dispute. It was in such circumstances that the extended period of limitation prescribed under the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have given careful consideration to the submissions. The proposal to impose penalties on the assessee under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Act, as contained in the original show-cause notice dated 04.09.2008, was dropped by the original authority. In revisionary proceedings, the Commissioner has imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,03,009/- on the assessee under Section 76 of the Act, ordered appropriation of the late fee of Rs. 14,000/- towards penalty under Section 77 of the Act, and dropped the proposal for imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Act. In adjudication of the original show-cause notice dated 04.09.2008, the Assistant Commissioner had appropriated Rs. 14,000/- paid by the assessee towards late fee for the delay of service tax r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the Assistant Commissioner's order which had confirmed the demand of service tax against them and appropriated their payments towards such demand for the entire period of dispute. By this conduct, the assessee tacitly accepted the ground for invocation of the extended period of limitation. In other words, the department's allegation that they had suppressed the value of the taxable service with intention to evade payment of service tax was tacitly accepted by the assessee. It is indisputable that the same constitutes one of the grounds for imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Act. Therefore, the Commissioner's decision to drop this penalty on the premise that the assessee did not have any intention to evade payment of service ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
