9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n record that the appellant was not preparing any bills on the Bank nor have charged service tax and/or collected any service tax. Thus, there is no conscious attempt on the part of the appellant to evade payment of service tax. There is no deliberate attempt and/or contumacious conduct on the part of the appellant in compliance with the service tax provisions. Penalty u/s 78 set aside - penalty u/s 77 reduced - appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. ST/70715/2016-ST [ SM ] - Final Order No. 70266/2018 - Dated:- 21-12-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Dharmendra Srivastava (CA) for Appellant Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh (Dy. Commr.) AR for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The issue in this appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7,03,464/- 2010-11 3,65,515/- 3. Inquiry letter was issued to the appellant by Revenue seeking details of compliances made by them if any. In response, the appellant informed that they do not prepare the balance sheet, they do not raise bills/invoices, they are not registered with service tax, they have not filed any ST-3 Return and they also informed that they neither collected nor deposited service tax. Further in response to summons the proprietor Mr. Pankaj Singh appeared and tendered his statement on 23rd September 2011, wherein he stated, he worked only for one Bank, namely ICICI Bank Ltd. His work involves to recover the amount which has already been written ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice tax payable was calculated after allowing the threshold exemption and accordingly. The total tax liability for the period 2006 07 to 2010 11 was worked out at ₹ 1,24,100/-. It is further admitted fact on record that the duty amount stood reduced to ₹ 94,754/- by the Commissioner (Appeals) who was pleased to further allow threshold exemption for a particular year, which was not allowed in the Order-in-Original. Further admitted fact is that the appellant had paid the amount of ₹ 94,754/- prior to the Order-in-Original being passed and the said amount stands appropriated in the Order-in-Original. Further penalties were imposed of ₹ 200/- per day or 2% of such tax per month in arrear under Section 76 for the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gly prays for deleting the penalties sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. The Learned A.R. for Revenue have relied on the impugned order. 8. Having heard the rival contentions, I find that it is not the case of Revenue that the appellant was a highly educated person understanding and/or having knowledge of the service tax provisions. In the statement recorded the appellant proprietor have stated that he was not aware of the provisions of service tax. He was entirely dependent on the bank which used to calculate the payments/commission payable to him, which was credited to his account, after deducting of income tax TDS at source. Further it is admitted fact on record that the appellant was not preparing any bills on the Bank nor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
