9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their Service Tax liability nor did they comply with the Service Tax Laws and Rules. The Revenue launched an investigation in February, 2008 and during the pendency of investigation the appellants took Service Tax registration on 04.03.2008. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants for demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 71,17,750/- along with interest under proviso to Section 73 and proposing penalties under section 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The matter was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar-I. During the adjudication, the appellants did not dispute their liability of Service Tax and only contested the penalty. Ld.Commissioner confirmed the demand along with interest and impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mining Services from M/s.O.M.C. as depicted in the detailed chart given in the Order-in-Original, they chose not to pay the Service Tax. They did not even take the registration even though it was mandated by law. It was only after the investigation was started that the appellants took the registration on 04.03.2008. It is clear that the appellants would not have paid the due Service Tax nor complied with the provisions of the Act and Service Tax Rules till the case was detected by the Revenue. Though the appellants paid the duty and interest after investigation begun, the fact remains that they did not make payment of Service Tax within the prescribed time and did not come forward to pay the due Service Tax on their own. They were not filin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of Mining Services had come into effect from 01.06.2007 and there was no confusion or ambiguity and the appellant has not taken the plea that they were not aware of the tax or there was any confusion. 6. In a case similar to the present appeal, this Tribunal has upheld penalty and extended period in the case of Mrs. Avtar Sodhi and others vs. CC, Ludhiana in Appeal No.ST/371-375 of 2009 (Final Order No.ST/A/56945-56954/2013-CU (DB) dt.4.7.2013). The ratio of this case is squarely applicable to the instant matter. 7. We also note that the Commissioner has already given the appellant the option to pay reduced penalty of 25% in accordance with law. 8. In view of the above we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. (Operati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
