TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l difficulties, can not be appreciated. Further, the appellants have admitted their tax liability and have paid the same for the longer period of limitation. As such, the invocation of longer period itself suggests that there was suppression or misstatement on the part of the assessee for nonpayment of the tax, in which case penal provisions would get attracted. - as the appellants have already deposited the service tax along with interest before the issue of show-cause notice, the penalty imposed under the provisions of Section 78 is required to be brought down to 25% of the tax amount - penalty in terms of Section 78 is set aside - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - ST/1676/2011-SM - - - Dated:- 30-1-2015 - Archana Wadhwa, Member ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority observed that appellant was registered with the department for payment of service tax under GTA services from 15.06.2006. In spite of that no service tax was paid by them and no ST-3 return was filed. The fact that they were under financial difficulty was also not intimated to the Revenue and as such he concluded that the Respondents had taken a chance for evasion of service tax liability and if the same would not have been detected by the audit officers, the same would have gone unnoticed. He also observed that inasmuch as the demand is for the longer period of limitation and the appellants have admitted their service tax liability, the element of suppression is involved, in which c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue, especially when the appellant was registered with the department and was aware of its legal obligations, reflected upon malafides of the appellant. The amount of service tax required to be paid for the period of three years was also not on the higher side and as such, the appellant's contention that the same was not paid on account of financial difficulties, can not be appreciated. Further, the appellants have admitted their tax liability and have paid the same for the longer period of limitation. As such, the invocation of longer period itself suggests that there was suppression or misstatement on the part of the assessee for nonpayment of the tax, in which case penal provisions would get attracted. At this stage I may refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|