9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red recovery of interest for the belated payment of service tax under Section 75 of the said Act. The Assistant Commissioner also imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,18,073/- on the assessee under Section 78 of the Act, after holding that the latter had deliberately withheld the true value of taxable services from the Department. By a separate order, dated 5-12-2000, the Assistant Commissioner confirmed a demand of service tax of Rs. 3,55,500/- against the assessee for the period 1-4-99 to 30-9-99 and also ordered recovery of interest on delayed payment of the tax. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,55,500/- on the assessee. Both the orders were issued with prior approval of the Commissioner of Central Excise as required under the proviso to Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rges only as their petition was pending before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. The same was the position with the returns filed for the subsequent period. When the Department asked for gross amounts of the relevant bills for the relevant periods, such details were promptly furnished. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the correct taxable values were deliberately suppressed from the Department with intent to evade payment of service tax, Consultant submits. It is, therefore, contended that the penalties imposed on the assessee are liable to be vacated. The learned Consultant submits that, in any case, the penalties imposed by the lower appellate authority in excess of the demands of service tax confirmed by the origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceeds Rs. 25,000/-. This objection has to be rejected at the outset inasmuch as the orders of the Assistant Commissioner clearly indicate to have been issued with the approval of the Commissioner. The penalties imposed under both the orders should be held to have been imposed with the prior approval of the Commissioner. 5. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed demands of service tax to the extent of Rs. 3,18,073/- and Rs. 3,55,500/- for the two periods covered by the two show cause notices. No appeal was filed by the department challenging these demands. Hence the demand (Rs. 1,825/-) made in excess of Rs. 3,55,500/- by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. In so far as the penalties are concerned, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only. Nevertheless, it also requires to be considered that the assessee maintained a conviction that service tax was payable on service charges only, that is why they moved the High Court. This circumstance should have been considered by the lower appellate authority while quantifying the penalty. The limit prescribed by the statute is the maximum limit. It has been held by this Tribunal that a lower amount of penalty may be imposed in the circumstances of the particular case. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, I reduce the penalties imposed on the party in relation to the periods 16-10-98 to 31-3-99 and 1-4-99 to 30-9-99 to Rs. 1.5 lakh each. 6. The appeals are allowed to the above extent, with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
