9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant in the ST-3 return for the said period. The show cause notice alleges that even on the taxable value shown in the ST-3 return, the appellant short paid service tax. It does not challenge the correctness of the taxable value shown in the ST-3 return. Validity of second SCN - HELD THAT:- The second show cause notice, on the other hand, challenges the taxable value indicated by the appellant in the ST-3 return for the Financial Year 2003-04 to Financial year 2007-08. It is stated that lesser taxable value has been shown .There is, therefore, no overlapping of issues in the two show cause notices. Penalties - HELD THAT:- The penalties are set aside by invoking section 80. Appeal allowed in part. - Service Tax Appeal No. 55702 of 2014 - Final Order No.: 50762/2019 - Dated:- 20-5-2019 - MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT And MR. C.L. MAHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. Vivek Pandey, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA 1. This appeal has been filed to assail the order dated 6 August 2014 that con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee is also liable for panel action under section 76 and 77 of the said Finance Act. Now, therefore, the assessee M/s Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corproation of India, Doordarshan Commercial Service, Doordarshan Bhawan, Copernicus Marg, Mandi House, New Delhi-110001 is hereby called upon to show cause to the Commissioner of Service Tax, 17-B, IAEA House, I P Estate, New Delhi within 30 days of the receipt of this notice as to why:- i. The value of taxable services rendered by the assessee on which tax is required to be paid should not b assessed as ₹ 30,99,77,593/- in terms of the provisions of Section 72 of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended. ii. Short Payment of Service Tax amounting to ₹ 3,55,03,646/- inclusive of Edu Cess should not be demanded and recovered from them under proviso of Section 73(i) of the Finance Act, 1994. iii. Interest on the due amount should not be charged and recovered under section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. iv. Penalty under Section 76 and 77 of the act ibid should not be imposed for various omissions and commissions in violation of the Finance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1843688 3642929679 1908914009 152713121 2004-05 6819436426 24970900 0 524044929 7368452255 5600459348 1767992907 180335277 2005-06 9316920635 24306191 0 932227821 10273454647 8725054760 1548399887 157936788 2006-07 9224440119 17018460 0 0 9241458579 7327877609 1913580970 234222311 2007-08 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Finance Act, 1994. While scrutinizing the records of the appellant, it was observed by the Audit Wing of the Service Tax Department that the appellant did not pay the Service Tax for the above taxable services provided by it. The difference in the duty liability was discharged by the appellant subsequently. However, in the adjudication order, the Department has confirmed the entire Service Tax liability alongwith interest and also imposed penalty on the appellant. 3. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant fairly concedes that the appellant is liable to pay Service Tax for the taxable services provided by it. However, he submitted that the cum-tax benefit has not been extended by the original authority. With regard to imposition of penalties, the ld. Advocate submits that the appellant is a statutory body and malafides cannot be attributed for imposition of the penalty. Further, he also pleads for the benefit of Section 80 of the Act, for non-imposition of penalty under Section 77 78 of the Act. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 5. Heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chamber of the Commissioner of Service Tax (Shri R.D. Negi) on 1.11.2010. A representation of PB for allowing a special dispensation of CENVAT credit for the relevant years on pro-rata basis (as suggested by the Commissioner during the hearing was sent to M/o. I B on Finance. When this was under process in the MIB, the Learned Commissioner unilaterally passed the order-in-original No. 16/RDN?2011 dated 5.5.2011 (received on 11.5.2011). As a law abiding entity, Prasar Bharti had deposited a total sum of ₹ 160.28 crore (which included penalty of 25% and interest) in June 2011 itself i.e. within 30 days. The position was informed to the CST forwarding therewith a copy of Challan (copy enclosed for ready reference). Prasar Bharti however filed an Appeal before CESTAT in August 2011 praying for refund of excess payment made by PB. Under the above circumstances, issuance of SCN and calling for a separate hearing would be sub judice to the above appeal. You are therefore, requested to kindly reconsider in proceeding further with proposed hearing and take appropriate action as deem fit and proper. 7. Learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t short paid service tax. It does not challenge the correctness of the taxable value shown in the ST-3 return. 12. The second show cause notice, on the other hand, challenges the taxable value indicated by the appellant in the ST-3 return for the Financial Year 2003-04 to Financial year 2007-08. It is stated that lesser taxable value has been shown .There is, therefore, no overlapping of issues in the two show cause notices. 13. The appellant has unnecessarily raised this submission. What the appellant has missed out is that the allegations made in the two show cause notices are entirely different. The first show cause notice is for the tax short paid on the taxable value shown by the appellant in the ST-3 returns. The second show cause notice requires the appellant to deposit the short paid service tax as the taxable value shown in the ST-3 return for the five financial years including 2007-08 was lesser than the income receipts as per the balance sheet. 14. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellant. 15. In the end, learned counsel for the appellant has contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
