9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been filed by the Revenue directed against the impugned order dated 18.05.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalties imposed under Section 76 and 78. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in providing Construction of Residential Complex Services. During a search operation conducted by the Department it was noticed that they had not registered themselves under Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 for collection and payment of service tax. During the period 16.06.2005 to 31.01.2006, they did not pay any service tax and a show-cause notice was served upon them demanding service tax along with cess and interest thereon and also proposing to impose penalties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicable. He further submitted that the demand of service tax is for the period 16.06.2005 to 31.01.2006 as a part of search and seizure conducted by the Department and therefore the extended period can be invoked as the assessee has suppressed the facts/information from the Department and violated the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 and therefore penalty under Section 78 is also justified. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned order by submitting that there was no suppression of facts with intent to evade duty and it is the assessee who approached the Department seeking registration and on the same day the Department conducted the search operation and issued him a show-cause notice and thereafter t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh liability as computed in the impugned order is questionable, this appeal is limited to the penalty imposed as the appellant has not furnished the correct computation. With the setting aside of penalty under Section 78, the bar on imposition of penalty under Section 76 ceases to exist. However, the appellant having discharged a substantial portion of tax liability before issue of notice, the notice itself, as per Section 73(3) should have been limited to the unpaid tax, if any, and thus restricting the penalty to such amount. Having failed to provide an acceptable computation of tax dues in the notice and owing to lack of examination of that aspect in the impugned order, quantification of penalty is not possible. Accordingly, the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
