9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. Since the audit till the 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. 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 posit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the appellant which was rejected vide Order-in-Appeal No. 252-253 dated 18.07.2018. Against the aforesaid Order-in-Original Department had also preferred an Appeal before Commissioner(Appeals) praying for imposition of penalty even under Section 76 of the Act and the penalty of Section 78 to be for the equal amount of the service tax demand confirmed vide the aforesaid Order-in-Appeal. The said Departmental Appeal was allowed. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. I have heard Mr. Laxman Shivaraman, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Mr. P.R. Gupta, Ld. DR for the Department. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the service tax, as demanded, was paid by the appellant on the day on which the SCN was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment therefore was entitled to invoke the extended period of limitation as has also been held by Commissioner(Appeals) who has even imposed the penalty under Section 76 for non payment of the service tax on the ground that amendment in Section 78 of the Act came into effect in the year 2008 only and the amendment cannot be applied retrospectively. It is apparent on record that the payment of impugned service tax was not made till it was noticed by the audit team of the Department. Finally, justifying the order under challenge even qua imposition of penalty, Appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 5. After hearing both the parties and observing the entire record, I observe that audit in this case was done in the year 2009 vide a letter date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
