9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he applicant. The difficulty mentioned by the applicant in not discharging the service tax liability, is due to non-availability of relevant data for determining the correct Service Tax liability which is clear from the finding of the Ld. Commr. (Appeal). On the other hand, prima facie, demand for recovery of interest is not barred by limitation and there is no invoking of suppression of facts, mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,33,31,419/- confirmed under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Ld. Consultant Shri Arun Kanti Bhattacharjee at the outset submits that the applicant is a public sector undertaking and rendering taxable services during the period April, 2005 to March, 2007. It is his submission that due to some mis-calculation of the liability and non-availability of documents even though the services were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade provisional during the disputed period and it could be finalized only in the month of August, 2007. Consequently, service tax was paid by the applicant. It is his submission that there is no dispute about liability of Service Tax, accordingly, there has been no need for scrutiny whether the demand was on account of suppression of facts or mis-statement etc. It was a simply default in payment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no invoking of suppression of facts, mis-statement and mis-declaration etc. for recovery of the outstanding dues. We do not find substance in the argument of the Ld. Consultant that in such cases, the interest is not liable to be paid under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 being barred by limitation as held by the Honble Delhi High Court in Kwality Ice Cream case (supra). In the result, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
