9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the part of the Revenue led the Appellant to deposit the service tax as well as interest thereon even before the show cause notice was issued by the revenue - In the circumstances, even if the tax and the interest on the same was paid before the issue of notice, it is not open to the Appellant to take benefit of section 73 (3) of the Act as the non payment of the service tax was on account of suppression with a malafide intention to evade payment of service tax. Thus in view of section 73(4) of the Act, the benefit of section 73 (3) of the Act, claimed by the Appellant would not be available. The contention that there was a bonafide belief that the Appellant are not liable to pay the service tax on outward transportation of goods and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... right in sustaining the imposition of the penalty under section 77 and section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 ? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly in light of the fact that the Appellant had paid service tax prior to the issuance of a notice under section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, whether the provisions of section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 would prevent the issuance of a notice under the section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 ? 3. The Appellant is engaged in manufacture of cotton coated fabrics. The Appellant also holds service tax registration under the category of Goods Transport Agency (GTA) under the Act. During the course of EA-2000 audit for the period from Apri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner dated 19th January, 2015 is correct and calls for no interference. 6. Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed an Appeal to the Tribunal. The impugned order of the Tribunal records a finding that the Appellant had not paid the service tax on outward transportation even though the expenditure was incurred on that count by it. In the context of the fact that the show cause notice had invoked extended period of limitation, the impugned order of the Tribunal held that the Appellant was not able to establish any bonafide belief on its part in not discharging / paying the service tax on outward transportation. Thus the extended period was invoked. Further the impugned order holds that no reasonable cause has been shown by the App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t thereon even before the show cause notice was issued by the revenue. In the above circumstances, even if the tax and the interest on the same was paid before the issue of notice, it is not open to the Appellant to take benefit of section 73 (3) of the Act as the non payment of the service tax was on account of suppression with a malafide intention to evade payment of service tax. Thus in view of section 73(4) of the Act, the benefit of section 73 (3) of the Act, claimed by the Appellant would not be available. 9. The contention that there was a bonafide belief that the Appellant are not liable to pay the service tax on outward transportation of goods and the GTA is not supported by any reasonable explanation. The bonafide belief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
