9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posit the service tax in time - penalty upheld. Benefit of reduced penalty - Held that:- The option having been granted by the Appellate Authority to deposit the 25% penalties within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of impugned Order-in-Appeal, having not been exercised by the assessee, no further extension can be granted for exercise of said option. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - APPEAL No. ST/53298/2015-CU[DB] - ST/A/72067/2018-CU[DB] - Dated:- 23-8-2018 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Akhil Gupta (Advocate) for Appellant Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi (Asstt. Commr.) AR for Respondent ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant have entered into a contract with BPCL providing services falling under the category of Erection, Commissioning Installation Service . They are registered with the department with effect from 07/11/2008 and in spite of the registration, they were neither filing ST-3 returns nor discharging their service tax liability. In the light of the above, statement of various persons were recorded wherein it was deposed by them that said service tax was being not deposited on account of financial crunch inasmuch as they had not recovered the service tax amount separately from their client M/s BPCL and the entire contract was inclusive of all the tax amounts. After the visit of the officers, the appellant, on various dates in February, Marc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant period, they were not depositing the service tax and were not filing ST-3 Returns on account of financial crunch being faced by them. He submits that part of the service tax was deposited by them before the date of visit of the officers and the balance stands deposited after the visit. It is his contention that the entire tax having been deposited before the issuance of the show cause notice, the penalty should not have been imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act. 7. Countering the arguments, Learned A.R. for Revenue Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi submits that the appellant had obtained registration in the year 2008, which fact itself reflects that the appellant was aware of their liability to pay service tax. In spite of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. 9. At this stage, learned advocate submits that penalty should be reduced to 25% of the total amounts inasmuch as the entire service tax stand deposited by the appellant. However, we find that in terms of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) such option have been granted to the appellant and does not stand exercised by them. The option having been granted by the Appellate Authority to deposit the 25% penalties within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of impugned Order-in-Appeal, having not been exercised by the assessee, we are of the view that no further extension can be granted for exercise of said option. 10. The appeal is rejected in above terms. (Dictated Pronounced in Court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Service T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
