9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to evade tax is understood form its very conduct of non-filing of periodic returns and even not answering to the notices sent at least on three occasions. Therefore, it is a clear case where department has proved the fact of intentional suppression of fact for the purpose of evading the tax liability - demand upheld. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - APPEAL NO. ST/86906 & 86916/2018 - A/85198-85199/2019 - Dated:- 25-1-2019 - DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Sandip Batwal, Advocate for Appellant Shri Chatru Singh, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for Respondent ORDER In this second round of litigation, appellant has assailed the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... copies evidencing payment of Service Tax for different period from 2006 to 2011 on the services availed from the appellant. Show-cause notice was issued to the appellant, matter was adjudicated upon and duty demands as above were confirmed on the appellant. In two separate appeals referred above, such order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is assailed before this Tribunal which had been taken up and heard analogously. 4. In the memo of appeal and during the course of hearing of the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant Shri Sandip Batwal submitted that appellant could not pay Service Tax due to financial crisis and had discharged the Service Tax liability as well as interest in the mean time for which penalty under Section 78 of Finance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance Act, 1994 for which the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is liable to be set aside. 5. In response to such submissions, Shri Chatru Singh, learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the respondent-department has supported the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and took this court through the observation made against the appellant by the Adjudicating Authority in terming the appellant as habitual offender. He pointed out that appellant has neither filed periodic ST-3 returns nor discharged tax liability, even on the basis of own assessment for several period for which order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was proper and needs no interference by the Tribunal. 6. Heard from both t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of non-filing of periodic returns and even not answering to the notices sent at least on three occasions. Therefore, it is a clear case where department has proved the fact of intentional suppression of fact for the purpose of evading the tax liability. The case laws cited supra and relied upon by the appellant are dissimilar to the facts and circumstances of the instant appeal. 7. In his detailed order, the Commissioner (Appeals) by invoking the proviso to Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 has reduced the penalty for the period after 08.04.2011 to 50% of the Service Tax to be re-quantified for the period 2011-12 and the re-quantification @ 25% of Service Tax liability for the period 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2013. I, therefore, find no irre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
