9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n documents were washed away in floods. The case of Roopa Ram Suthar (2014 (12) TMI 826 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) does not come to the aid of the client because in that case documents existed and invoices clearly disclosed that no service tax component was added and collected from customer. Appellant was very well aware of their responsibility and liability, having taken service tax registration in Feb 2003. But appellant still chose to avoid all Legal obligations cast on them after taken service tax registration and not complying with the requirement of filing ST3 returns on periodical basis for a long period of six years till the time of issuance of show cause notice - appellant had service tax registration but did not receive the show caus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod. It was also noticed that apart from not paying service tax since 2002, they never filed any ST3 returns. Show cause notice dated 7/4/2008 was issued to them which 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 Bench decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II Vs. Roopa Ram Suthar [2014 (35) S.T.R. (Tri. Del]. He also prayed for waiver of penalty relying on the Hon'bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to show that the value received by them is actually cum duty value. Appellant got enough opportunity to produce documents from their client even if their own documents were washed away in floods. The case of Roopa Ram Suthar (supra) does not come to the aid of the client because in that case documents existed and invoices clearly 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 avoid all Legal obligatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
