9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and were discharging service tax liability. However, during the period 2006-2007 to September 2008, the appellant did not discharge service tax liability on the taxable considerations received by them. Upon follow up enquiry by the officers of the Department, an amount of Rs. 3,54,37,986/- was later paid by the appellant. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant for confirmation of service tax liability and for imposing penalties. The impugned order confirmed a service tax liability of Rs. 3,54,37,986/- alongwith interest. The amounts already paid towards service tax and interest were appropriated. Penalty of equivalent amount was imposed on the appellant under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. In the present appeal, the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hardship claimed cannot be the reason for holding the service tax payment when the amount was collected from the client. The case is not falling within the scope of Section 73 (3) as there is a prolonged, intentional delay in paying service tax even after realising the tax value from the clients. Section 73 (4) clearly states that the provisions of sub-Section (3) will not apply in case service tax has not been paid due to reasons of willful mis-statement, suppression of facts etc. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. The appellant is only contesting the imposition of penalty under Section 78. We note that the service tax is payable by the appellant, during the material time, only when the consideration for servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of CCE, Visakhapatnam - II vs. M/s Tirupathi Fuels Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2016 - TIOL - 2311 - CESTAT - HYD, were examining the application of sub-Section (3) of Section 73 to the appellant's case. We note that in the present case, the appellant did not discharge the service tax liability even after receipt of money with tax from the clients for a long period of more than one financial year. This fact has been admitted. It is also noted that in the guise of getting central registration in Delhi they have given an impression to the Service Tax Authorities at Ranchi that the tax due is being discharged at Delhi. The Original Authority has recorded that after numerous letters to follow up, it is noted that the appellant was registered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring a particular month. In fact when the appellants were receiving consideration from clients and not discharging the full tax liability, later payment of tax liability in part will be attributable to the past arrears as there is no dispute regarding the tax liability at any point of time. In other words, when there is a non-payment of service tax within the stipulated time, the authorities are right in proceeding against the appellant to confirm and recover the non-paid tax liability and to impose penalty. We note that the closure of proceeding as pleaded by the appellant in terms of Section 73 (3) is not possible in the present case in view of the facts discussed above. Such closure is not permissible if the case is covered under the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
