9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollected the same - The service in question came into statute book effective from 16.08.2002 and the SCN reveals that the appellant failed to discharge tax liability from 01.04.2004 and not even filed its service tax (ST-3) returns from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2009, the period covered under the SCN. Sufficient time was granted even after survey by the Revenue intelligence, even the ld. Commissioner in the impugned order-in-original has fairly tried getting clarifications from the appellant’s sundry debtors on account of the appellant’s failure to do so. Commissioner has also been fair in extending the cum-tax value benefit despite the above and only quantified the demand thereafter - In spite of all this, the appellant, as admitted even by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 76, 77 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. In reply and during the adjudication proceedings, appellants inter alia pointed out that some of the billing related to reimbursable expenses; that amount of ₹ 3.24 crores is pending realization from their clients for the period 2004-05 to 2008-09. In adjudication, the Commissioner vide the impugned order dt. 3.6.2011 restricted the demand to ₹ 87,83,385/- with interest thereon and imposed penalty of ₹ 5000/- under Section 77 ibid and also imposed equal penalty of ₹ 87,83,385/- under Section 78 ibid. Hence the appellants have filed this appeal only with respect to imposition of penalty under Section 78 ibid. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i- Ahmd.) which was affirmed by Hon ble High Court of Gujarat as reported in 2011 (21) STR 500 (Guj.) (2) CCE Pune III Vs Core Fitness Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (4) GSTL 80 (Tri.-Mumbai) 3. On the other hand, Ld. A.R draws our attention to the impugned order and submits that enough opportunity time and again was granted to the appellants to submit additional documents from their clients to substantiate the claim of non-realization of ₹ 3.24 crores, however they failed to do so. Further, the random verification from four of such clients clearly indicated that no dues were pending to the appellants. Adjudicating authority has therefore proved that the assessee s claim of non-realization of ₹ 3.24 crores appears to be false and an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parently hid everything, without even bothering to disclose even a bit, by not choosing to file ST-3. 6. Sufficient time was granted even after survey by the Revenue intelligence, even the ld. Commissioner in the impugned order-in-original has fairly tried getting clarifications from the appellant s sundry debtors on account of the appellant s failure to do so. Commissioner has also been fair in extending the cum-tax value benefit despite the above and only quantified the demand thereafter. In spite of all this, the appellant, as admitted even by the ld. Advocate, has not paid the differential duty of ₹ 38,88,360/- demanded, which doesn t show their bonafides. The maxim He who comes into equity must come with clean hand is quite ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
