9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 910X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant only from 2005-2006 onwards and the entire disputed Service Tax along with interest, was paid - It is not the case of the Revenue that appellant has recovered the Service Tax from the service recipients and retained the same. No specific fact has been disclosed in SCN as to how there was wilful misstatement/suppression on the part of the appellant with an intention to evade Service Tax - this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Shri Gunjan Shah (C.A.) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that Service Tax amount of ₹ 2,89,199/- and interest amount of ₹ 35,460/- was paid by the appellant on 26-6-2008 much before the issue of Show Cause Notice dated 20-10-2008. The remaining amount of confirmed demand along with interest was also paid after their appeal was set aside by Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Commissioner of Service Tax v. Motor World - 2012 (27) S.T.R. 225 (Kar.). 3. Shri G. P. Thomas (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that no reasonable cause exists in this case for non-payment of Service Tax and, therefore, appellant s case is not covered under Section 80 and penalties under Sections 76 and 78 have been correctly upheld by the first appellate authority. 4. Heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fic fact has been disclosed in Paras 21 and 22 of the show cause notice dated 20-10-2008 issued to the appellant as to how there was wilful misstatement/suppression on the part of the appellant with an intention to evade Service Tax. 5. In view of the above observations, it is a fit case of invoking the provisions of Sec. 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, appeal filed by the appellant w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
