9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer or any other service tax officer. It was the liability of the appellant to pay the proper service tax within the stipulated time period and to disclose all relevant information to he department, which was not done by the appellant in the instant case. Had the investigation not conducted the said short payment of service tax would not have been detected. Thus the appellant suppressed the fact of payment made to transporters with intent to evade payment of service tax; therefore, they are liable for penal action under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Decided against assessee. - ST/3700/2012-ST(SM) - Final Order NO. 57031/2013 - Dated:- 19-7-2013 - Manmohan Singh, J. For the Appellant : Shri Alok Kothari, Adv. For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ........... (d) ............ (e) ;............ (f) ............. (g) any body corporate established, or a partnership firm registered by or under any law, any person who pays or is liable to pay freight either himself or through his agent for the transportation of such goods by road in a goods carriage" 4. In this case the appellant M/s Sarasota Italia Marble paid freight to the transporters. The service tax liability has been accepted by the appellants and they have paid the tax. They have, however, challenged the imposition of penalty on the ground that they were eligible for exemption under Notification No 6/2005-S.T. dated 01.3.2005. 5. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that it is wrongly alleged that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner (Appeals) 8. So far as imposition of penalty under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1944 is concerned. I find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has elaborately discussed the issue. The relevant para 9 of the impugned order is stated below:- "As regards penalties impugned under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1944, I find that there is no doubt that the appellant had not paid the appropriate tax which was required to be paid by them and they also did not disclose the said facts in any manner to the department. If they had any confusion, they should have approached the jurisdiction Range officer or any other service tax officer. It was the liability of the appellant to pay the proper service tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
