9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 949X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts of the respondent. This itself is sufficient evidence to establish that the respondent is guilty of suppression of facts - The law laid u/s 78 of the FA, 1994 mandates imposition of equal penalty when suppression of facts are established. The adjudicating authority imposed penalty of ₹ 35 lakhs which in my view is in excess of that which is allowed in the said provision. However, the respondent is liable to pay equal penalty which is ₹ 32,87,607/- of the service tax confirmed in appeal no. 258/2009 and ₹ 12,26,432/- in appeal no. 259/2009 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue. - Appeal No. ST/258/2009 & ST/259/2009 - A/30463-30464/2017 - Dated:- 10-3-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1-02 to 2006-07 demanding an amount of ₹ 39,15,184/- and another show cause notice even dated for the period 2003-04 to 2006-07 (9/2007) for an amount of ₹ 20,59,953/-. 3. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority passed separate orders in original. In respect of show cause notice for ₹ 39,15,184/- the adjudicating authority confirmed demand of ₹ 32,36,467/- as service tax for security agency services and manpower supply services for the period 2001-02 to 2006-07 (9/2007). A sum of ₹ 51,140/- was confirmed as service tax on manpower supply for the period 2/2003 to 5/2005. Apart from confirmation of demand of interest, the adjudicating authority imposed penalty of ₹ 35 lakhs under Section 78 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e department and also from clients of the respondent. That the returns filed by the respondents did not reflect the actual value of taxable services. The facts reveal that the respondents are guilty of suppression of facts and therefore the adjudicating authority had rightly confirmed the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. In that scenario, the Commissioner (Appeals) ought not to have reduced the penalty to the extent of the amount paid by the respondent before adjudication. He argued that as the demand for the extended period has been confirmed establishing suppression of facts, the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have upheld equal amount of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 7. None appeared on behalf of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
