9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the period January 2005 to March 2005 and January 2006 to December 2006. After observing the same SCN bearing No. 6888 dated 08.01.2010 was served upon the appellant proposing the recovery of service tax amounting to Rs. 1,66,554/- alongwith the interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act hereinafter) and the penalties to be imposed under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Act. The said proposal was initially confirmed by Order-in-Original No.56 dated 03.01.2017 except that no penalty under Section 76 was imposed and the penalty under Section 78 was imposed only for Rs. 16,654/-. Being aggrieved, an Appeal was preferred by the appellant which was rejected vide Order-in-Appeal No. 252-253 dated 18.07.2018. Against the afore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile rebutting these arguments, it is submitted by the DR that the original adjudicating authority has been specific enough while noting the conduct of the appellant who despite his assurance to furnish requisite documents and despite receiving repeated reminders for the same, did not provide any document evidencing inclusion of outward transportation in their statutory ST-3 returns. It is impressed upon that the payments so received for outward freight by the appellant were concealed in their returns. This conduct is sufficient to hold that appellant has suppressed the relevant fact that too with the sole intention of evading tax. Department therefore was entitled to invoke the extended period of limitation as has also been held by Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e date of said payment, there was more than one year of period available with the appellant to cooperate the Department and to submit the documents but there was no compliance/ intimation on part of appellant. The option of the appellant to remain silent, to my opinion, is sufficient to reflect that non payment of tax was not mere unawareness of the impugned liability on the part of the appellant but the appellant under the garb of said unawareness was not inclined to discharge his liability. 6. No doubt mere non payment of tax liability cannot amount to suppression of fact but as discussed above the act of appellant of concealing relevant documents despite being afforded with the opportunity is definitely a positive act on his part to pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
