9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant placed copies of ST-3 returns on record which reflect the value of services provided - Held that: as there was no fraud or suppression of facts or contravention of any provisions of Service Tax law with intent to evade payment of service tax, the extended period under Section 73(1) is not applicable. Also, there was the genuine omission to pay tax @ 10.2% instead of @ 8% which is a bona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1994. During the period 1-4-2004 to 30-9-2006, the appellant received an amount of ₹ 82,48,726/- for providing security agency services to M/s. Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi. It was alleged that the appellant wilfully suppressed the taxable value based on the amount received by them and therefore, evaded Service Tax amounting to ₹ 8,93,105/-. A show cause notice dated 19-3-2009 wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had considered the rate for the entire period as 10.2%. On the reduced tax payable, i.e., ₹ 92,497/-, the Commissioner (Appeals) correspondingly reduced the penalty under Section 78 to ₹ 92,497/-. He set aside the penalty under Section 76. Subsequent to the adjudication order, the appellant deposited the remaining amount of Service Tax, i.e., ₹ 92,497/-. 3. The main ground tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich held that no penalty is imposable when the act is not deliberate. 4. The learned. AR reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 5. We find in this case that the value of service declared in the periodical returns, i.e., ₹ 83,27,454/- is more than the value shown in the show cause notice, i.e., ₹ 82,48,726/-. The appellant has placed copies of ST-3 returns on record. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
