9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... available on record and from the admission by the National Manager - Accounts of the appellant-firm, it is clear that the appellant-assessee did not discharge Service Tax liability. From the investigation report also it is clear that the appellant did not cooperate with the investigating agency with regard to the quantification of the Service Tax liability and, therefore, as a last resort, the Service Tax liability had to be computed based on the balance sheet figures and trial balance figures which were taken out from the computer maintained by the appellant. In these circumstances, determination of the Service Tax liability by the adjudicating authority based on the figures/records maintained in the computer cannot be faulted at all. - w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Intelligence. There was total lack of cooperation by the appellant-assessee with the investigation and, therefore, a search was conducted and incriminating documents and computer maintained by the appellant were taken over. From the computer seized, the branch wise break up of sales figures and trial balance of the appellant-assessee were retrieved for the period April 2001 to March 2006 and these were compared with the ST-3 returns filed by the appellant and it was found, that there was a huge gap between the two figures. While, as per the balance sheet/trial balance figures, the value of services rendered during the April 2001 to March 2006 was ₹ 48,47,27,376/-, the value declared in the ST-3 returns filed was only & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the abovesaid liability and imposed a penalty of ₹ 20,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 and a penalty equal to Service Tax demand confirmed under Section 78. This is the order which is under challenge both by the appellant-assessee as well as by Revenue. 3.2 The Revenue is aggrieved of the said order for the reason that, since the appellant-assessee has collected Service Tax from the customers, the question of granting cum-tax benefit would not arise whereas the appellant-assessee is contesting the Service Tax liability determined on the ground that they were entitled to Cenvat credit of ₹ 1,44,76,395/- on the input services received by them. It is also their contention that part of the income pertains to exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Shri Seetharam Chinga Kotian, National Manager - Accounts of the appellant-firm had clearly admitted to non-payment of Service Tax since October 2003 onwards. Even though he had promised to make good the Service Tax liability and deposited ₹ 25 lakhs towards discharge of Service Tax liability by way of cheques, among cheques worth ₹ 10 lakhs bounced. The total Service Tax deposited by the appellant is only ₹ 30 lakhs. From the records, it is seen that, since October 2003 onwards the appellant-assessee has also not filed Service Tax returns. Even for the earlier period, no return has been filed for the period April 2002 to September 2002. From the evidence available on record and from the admission by the National Manager ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
