9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir business in July 2006. In such circumstances, there is no justification for opposing the penalties. In any case, the appellant has not sought the benefit of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 in this appeal. - payment of service tax prior to issue of show-cause notice is no ground to oppose the section 78 penalty - Decided against the assessee. - ST/1012 of 2009 - Final Order No. 25003 of 2013 - Dated:- 15-1-2013 - CHACKO P.G., J. For the Appellant : None appeared For the Respondent : Ms. Sabrina Cano, Superintendent (Authorised Representative), ORDER:- P.G. CHACKO (Judicial Member).- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against penalties imposed on them under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and sustained the rest of the order-in-original. In the present appeal filed by the assessee against the Appellate Commissioner's order, there is no challenge towards the demand of service tax and education cess, nor towards the demand of interest thereon. The grievance of the appellant is entirely against the penalties imposed on them under sections 77 and 78 of the Act. Though, in para 6 of the grounds of appeal, the appellant has stated that the showcause notice is barred by limitation and that application of extended period of limitation would not arise on the facts and circumstances of the case , no serious challenge against the demand of service tax is forthcoming. As a matter of fact, the appellant, in column No. 8 of the ST-5 f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitation prescribed under section 73(1) of the Act as also of proposing penalty under section 78 of the Act. By admitting the tax liability for the extended period of limitation, the appellant was virtually conceding suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of service tax , which is, incidentally, a ground for invoking section 78 of the Act for imposition of penalty. The learned Superintendent (Authorised Representative) further submits that this proposal for penalty under section 78 of the Act cannot be resisted on the ground that the service tax in question was paid before issue of the show-cause notice. In this connection, reliance is placed on Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills [2010] 1 GSTR 66 (SC); [2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and also admitted that they had not obtained registration with the Department in respect of the new premises to which they had shifted their business in July 2006. In such circumstances, there is no justification for opposing the penalties. In any case, the appellant has not sought the benefit of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 in this appeal. 6. As rightly submitted by the learned Superintendent (Authorised Representative), payment of service tax prior to issue of show-cause notice is no ground to oppose the section 78 penalty. The ruling of the apex court in Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills [2010] 1 GSTR 66 (SC); [2009] 238 ELT 3 (SC) appears to be applicable to this case. 7. In the result, the appeal gets dismissed. - - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
