9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate Per: P.K. Das 1. The Appellant filed this appeal against the demand of Service Tax of Rs. 8,62,338.00 alongwith interest and penalty of equal amount under Sections 78, 76, 77 (1)(b), 77(1)(C) of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules, 1994 separately. The tax was demanded under the category of "Maintenance or Repair Service" for the period April 2006 to March 2011. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and had not filed ST-3 return. 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the Appellant obtained the Service Tax registration in February 2007 and had not filed ST-3 return. It is not clear, why the Department had not taken any steps for non-filing of the ST-3 return. Shri Dinkar Brijnath Pandey, Proprietor of the Appellant Firm in his statement dated 28.12. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd not deposited in Central Government account, therefore, penalty under Section 78 is warranted. It is clear case of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of tax and extended period of limitation would be involved. 6. Taking into account overall facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered view, the penalties imposed under other Sections are not warranted. The Tribunal in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
