9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e only course open to him was to approach the Settlement Commission by way of a suitable Miscellaneous Application with the relevant facts, whereupon the Settlement Commission, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner could arrive at its own appropriate conclusions and pass appropriate fresh orders. The Petitioner and the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax only being the rival parties before the said Settlement Commission could not undo the effect of the order passed by the Settlement Commission at their own level and therefore, it was incumbent for the Respondent Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax to have approached the Settlement Commission seeking a modification or review of the order passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Service Tax matters by Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. i) The additional amount of Service Tax is settled at ₹ 2,18,74,972/- (Rupees two crore eighteen lakhs seventy four thousand nine hundred and seventy two only). As an amount of ₹ 1,14,05,197/- has already been paid towards additional Service Tax liability, the balance amount of ₹ 1,04,69,775/- should be paid within 30 days of receipt of this order and proof of payment furnished to the Jurisdictional Commissioner. ii) The applicable interest on the Service Tax settled shall be calculated by the applicant to the satisfaction of Jurisdictional Commissioner and the payment should be made by the applicant within 30 days of receipt of this order and proof o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and gave the details of 15 payments made on different dates purportedly for satisfaction of the conditions imposed by the Settlement Commission for payment of Service Tax to the total extent of `2,19,58,765.00. The period of Settlement covered by the Settlement Commission was 2007-2008 to 2011- 2012. 4. However, the Respondent- Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax passed the impugned order Annexure-A dated 21.11.2016 withdrawing the immunity granted to the petitioner by the Settlement Commission on the ground that the Petitioner had not really complied with the condition imposed by the Settlement Commission in its order Annexure-T dated 28.3.2014 and the payment of Service Tax was not made for the period covered by the Settlem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e collection of service tax and non remitting the same to be Government exchequer with an intention to evade payment of service tax. (v) I impose penalty of ₹ 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) under Section 77(1)(a) of the Act, for their failure to obtain Service Tax registration within the stipulated time under the category of Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service , Security Agency s Service and Commercial Training or Coaching Services as required under Section 69 of the Act read with Rule 4 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. (vi) I impose penalty of ₹ 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) under Section 77(2) of the Act for their failure to remit the service tax collected from their clients to the credit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Petitioner submitted that this was not the correct position and the payments made by the Petitioner were for the period covered by the order of the Settlement Commission and the additional documents have been filed by both the parties in pursuance of the directions of this Court. 8. However, after hearing both the learned counsels and upon perusal of the said documents, this Court is of the opinion that it is not open to the Respondent-Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax to himself treat the order of Settlement Commission as non est because, in his opinion, the condition of granting immunity under the said order by payment of service tax dues to the extent of `2.19 crore was not satisfied. If at all factually the said C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
