9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ped the appellant to file the statutory returns disclosing their liability to pay service tax, in which case, it would have been a it cannot be a case of delayed payment and not of non-payment. The fact of non-disclosure and non-filing of returns leads to the inevitable conclusion that the appellant was doing so with malafide intention, in which case, there is clear mandate of law contained in the provisions of section 76, for imposition of penalties - penalty upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - ST/40769/2016 - Final Order No. 41486/2017 - Dated:- 2-8-2017 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Shri M. Kannan, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) ORDER Aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urisdictional authorities directed them to pay the amount, the same was deposited. However, he submits that having deposited the amount along with interest, penal provisions should not have been invoked against them and no proceedings should have been initiated in terms of the provisions of section 73 (3) of the Act. Learned advocate submits that the tax could not be deposited as they were facing financial crunch and have subsequently deposited the same along with interest, penalty imposed upon them be set aside. 4. Countering the arguments, learned departmental representative draws my attention to the provisions of section 76 of the Act and submits that imposition of penalty, in case of non-filing of returns or non-payment of service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... positing the same it was being pocketed. Even if it is assumed that tax was not being deposited on account of financial difficulties, nothing stopped the appellant to file the statutory returns disclosing their liability to pay service tax, in which case, it would have been a it cannot be a case of delayed payment and not of non-payment. The fact of non-disclosure and non-filing of returns leads to the inevitable conclusion that the appellant was doing so with malafide intention, in which case, there is clear mandate of law contained in the provisions of section 76, for imposition of penalties. I find no justifiable reason to set aside the penalty. In view of the above, the impugned order is upheld and appeal is rejected. (Dictated an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
