9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the year 2006-07 on which service tax was not paid - If service tax was collected from M/s. Bharati Airtel and it was not shown in the ST-3 returns and it was found out on going through the P & L accounts of the assessee and comparing the same with ST returns, in my opinion, it would amount to suppression of facts and violation of provisions of law. However, there were no clear observations on these aspects - Therefore, it is extremely difficult to come to the right conclusion since the facts are not clear, the legal position is not clear. Therefore the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority. - ST/922/2012-SM - Final Order No.27030 / 2013 - Dated:- 29-11-2013 - B S V Murthy, J. For the Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no specific allegation of suppression, fraud, collusion or mis -declaration in the show-cause notice. 3. Learned AR would submit that in this case the appellants had collected the service tax from the customers and did not pay the tax and therefore imposition of penalty under Section 76 of Finance Act is in order. 4. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. Even though only stay application has been listed, since considerable time has been spent in hearing the appeal, in fact, the matter was heard on 22.11.2013 for quite some time and thereafter at the request of advocate for the appellant, the matter was adjourned for a week. Today also the matter was heard for quite some time in detail. Therefore the appeal itself i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said to have been attached to the show-cause notice has not been submitted by the appellant at all and unfortunately during the course of hearing also the worksheet was not available. In the absence of worksheet, when I consider the paragraphs 2-3 what emerges is that the exact amount which was not paid during the period from April 2007 to March 2010 is not at all available in the show-cause notice. In paragraph 3, what has been mentioned is that the appellant has not paid the amount of more than Rs.1 crore and education cess leviable thereon and these amounts were paid along with applicable interest of Rs.95,096 /-. This does not give the exact amount in default and on what basis the penalty under Section 76 has been computed. Moreover, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that appellant has received an amount of Rs.10 ,66,938 /- from M/s. Bharati Airtel during the year 2006-07 on which service tax was not paid. Learned AR made a submission that service tax had been collected from M/s. Bharati Airtel . If service tax was collected from M/s. Bharati Airtel and it was not shown in the ST-3 returns and it was found out on going through the P L accounts of the assessee and comparing the same with ST returns, in my opinion, it would amount to suppression of facts and violation of provisions of law. Nevertheless as submitted rightly by the learned advocate, there were no clear observations on these aspects. In fact, I do not even know that this amount has been taken into account for the purpose of determining of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
