9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al on record to prove that there was suppression and concealment of facts to evade payment of tax. Consequently, in my opinion, the imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Act is not justified and bad in law. - No penalty - Decided in favor of assessee. - ST/22714/2014-SM - - - Dated:- 20-9-2016 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. N. Anand, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Pakshi Rajan, A.R. For the Respondent ORDER The present appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 43/2014 dated 22.04.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), vide which he has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, LTU, Bangalore. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t not to impose penalty since mistake is genuine but despite the request of the appellant, the Department issued a show-cause notice seeking to impose mandatory penalty on the ground of suppression. The adjudicating authority passed the Order-in-Original dated 01.11.2013 and imposed mandatory penalty of ₹ 4,94,335/- under Section 78 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who also upheld the imposition of mandatory penalty under Section 78 of the Act. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that imposition of penalty under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C.C.E. [1994 (74) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.)] 6. On the other hand, learned A.R. submitted that the appellant has suppressed the fact of receiving the services of erection, commissioning installation from an overseas entity from the eyes of the department with an intention to evade the payment of service tax and they failed to include the same in the ST3 returns filed by them regularly for the respective period. Therefore, the lower authority has rightly imposed the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 7. After considering the submissions by both the parties and perusal of the provisions of Sections 73 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and the judgements relied upon by the appellant cited supra, I find that Section 73(3) is very c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
