9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Ms. Amrutha Arvind, Advocate for the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in providing the services of Site Formation and Clearance, Excavation and Earthmoving and Demolition Services. On scrutiny of records, it was noticed that they provided such services to M/s. Madras Cements Ltd. and received an amount of ₹ 16,93,372/- as service tax from October 2009 to January 2010 but did not pay the amount to the Central Government. On such allegation, show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing to demand service tax along with interest and also for imposing penalties. After due proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant indulging in suppression of facts. There was no intention to evade payment of service tax which is very much clear since the appellant has discharged the service tax along with interest immediately and also had filed periodical returns. She therefore prayed that the penalty imposed under section 78 may be set aside. 3. The ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan supported the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that this is a case where the appellant has collected the service tax but has not paid up to the Government. Collection of service tax and not paying to the Government itself would indicate that the appellant is guilty of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of service tax. Therefore, the penalty imposed under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore it is implied that they have an intention to evade payment of service tax. It is submitted by ld. counsel that they had filed the returns within the due date and due to financial hardship they could not deposit within time. We do not find any suppression on the part of the appellant with intent to evade payment of service tax. Further, as they have discharged the service tax along with interest immediately on being pointed out by the officers, we are of the view that the penalty imposed under section 78 is unwarranted and requires to be set aside which we hereby do. The Tribunal in the case of Onward E Services Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai II 2019 (21) GSTL 167 (Tri. Mum.) has analyzed a similar situation wherei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
