9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ishra, Addl. Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per: P S Pruthi: This appeal arises from Order-in-Original No. 52/STC/BR/08-09 dated 4/3/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai confirming demand of service tax of Rs. 70,27,299/- for the period from October 2002 to March 2007 ordering appropriate interest and imposing penalties under Section 76, 77, 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich culminated in the impugned order of Commissioner of Service tax. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that service tax was demanded on total gross value received by them which should be taken as cum duty value because they neither collected nor received any amount over and above the amount shown in the Bank Statement. He relied on the Larger Benc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant. On the aspect of penalty and time bar, he relied on the Tribunal decision in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. C.S. T. Mumbai-I [2015 (37) S.T.R. 785 (Tri-Mumbai) which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in [2015 (37) J176 (SC). 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. 6. The aspect of leviability of service tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learly disclosed that no service tax component was added and collected from customer. Therefore we are not inclined to agree with counsel's contention and the same is rejected. 6.1 On the issue of extended time period and penalty, we note that appellant was very well aware of their responsibility and liability, having taken service tax registration in Feb 2003. But appellant still chose to av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that their intentions were not bonafide. Considering the CESTAT judgment in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India (supra) as affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we do not find it a fit case for waving penalty. It is certainly not a case for waiver of penalties under Section 80 of the Finance Act. Penalty may not be imposed in terms of Section 80 if the assessee proves that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
