9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x but not deposited with the Government, there is no reason not to invoke the extended period of limitation and impose penalty under Section 78 and other provisions of Finance Act, 1994 as has been done by the adjudicating authority in the order impugned. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - APPEAL NO: ST/87849/2014 - A/87777/2018 - Dated:- 24-10-2018 - Dr. D. M. Misra, Member (Judicial) And Shri C. J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri DR Gadekar, Consultant for appellant Shri M Suresh, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra Heard both sides. 2. This is an appeal filed against Order-in-Original No: 01/ST/2014 dated 07/01/2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n though the service tax had been collected from the customers. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by both the sides and perused the records. It is not in dispute that the appellant had provided management, maintenance or repair service during the relevant period but failed to discharge service tax even though the same was collected along with their service charges. In examining the relevant invoices and other evidences, the Learned Commissioner recorded his finding as follows: 4.4. Elaborating further, I find that M/s. Sinic had raised Tax Invoices/Bills charging the amount to their customers against performance of service. A perusal of Tax Invoice No. 190/24.12.2007, No.200/26.12.2007, No. 258/26.12.2007 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir Dhule Corporate office, as they were maintaining centralized accounting at. Dhule office. This evidently showed that the assessee was well aware of the service tax provisions and their applicability, and therefore, it was their responsibility to discharge the obligation, in which they failed miserably. 7. Neither in the appeal memorandum nor during the course of hearing the appellant has produced evidences to rebut the said findings of the Learned Commissioner. Since during the relevant period the appellant had collected service tax but not deposited with the Government, we do not find any reason not to invoke the extended period of limitation and impose penalty under Section 78 and other provisions of Finance Act, 1994 as has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
