9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Anti Evasion Wing of Service Tax Commissionerate, Mumbai and records were summoned and statements recorded. Based on investigation conducted, it appeared that the appellant had received a consideration of Rs. 51,49,56,282/- by way of Engineering Consultancy during the period from 1.4.2001 to 31.12.2005 and they had not discharged Service Tax liability on the consideration received. It appeared that the Engineering Consultancy undertaken by the appellant would come under the category of Consulting Engineer's Service as defined under Section 65(105)(g) accordingly, a show-cause notice dated 17.10.2010 ( sic ) was issued demanding Service Tax of Rs. 4,12,93,802/- from the appellant along with interest thereon and also proposing to imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ategory of Consulting Engineers' Service. He also confirmed interest liability thereon apart from imposing the penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that since for the period 2002-03 upto 31.12.2005, the demands were dropped, there is no reason to presume that for the period 2001-02, the appellants were liable to pay Service Tax. In any case, there is no reason to assume that the appellant had evaded Service Tax during 2001-02 and therefore, the invocation of extended period of time for confirmation of demand is not sustainable in law, especially considering the fact that for the subsequent period, the appellants w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rect nature and value of the services. It is on this ground, the extended period of time has been invoked for quantification of demand. For the period 2002-03 onwards, the appellant has been able to furnish documentary evidence showing that the consideration received was not for Consulting Engineers Service but for other services rendered by the appellant. However, no such documentary evidence has been produced in respect of the consideration received for the period 2001-02. In the absence of such documentary evidence, there cannot be any presumption in favour of the appellant that the consideration received was for other than the Consulting Engineers Service. In the Books of Account, the consideration received has been shown as income unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the appellant is that in the Returns filed for the respective periods, the appellant did not disclose receipt of the consideration for the services rendered and that would clearly amount to willful mis-statement of facts. Therefore, penalty under Section 78 is correctly imposable on the appellant. Further, as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Indian Institute of Chemical Technology - 2012 (26) STR 97 (AP), waiver of penalty under Section 80 would imply that the confirmation of demand invoking extended period of limitation is not justified. If that be so, the question of waiver of penalty would not arise when the appellant has resorted to suppression/willful mis-statement of facts with an intent to eva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
