9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficulty in not registering the firm despite the fact that show-cause notice revealed huge turnover of 2,46,97,756/- for providing temporary accommodation service to the customers, paucity of funds cannot be a ground for non-registration of the firm. Further, as per Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, admission needs no further proof and when appellant admits through the statement of its manager that Service Tax was not paid and Service Tax registration was not obtained with its full knowledge, the same would establish a clear case of suppression against the appellant. The duty on room service charges at a reduce calculated rate along with interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 and penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the ground of mis-calculation and penalty imposed on the appellant which was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) who reduced the duty demand on room service to ₹ 59,254/- against adjudication order of ₹ 1,27,752/- along-with interest and reduced penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the whole of Service Tax realised as wells as recoverable from it. The legality of such order of penalty is only challenged by the appellant before this Appellate Tribunal. 3. During the course of hearing of appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant Shri Brijesh Pathak submitted that if the statement of the manager recorded by the department is to be accepted, it failed to register and not paid Service Tax due to financi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner (Appeals). He prays to set aside the order of Commissioner (Appeals) only to the extent of penalty confirmed by him. 4. In response to such submissions, learned Authorised Representative for the respondent-department Shri S.B. Mane, Assistant Commissioner submitted that while admitting about imposition of 50% penalty in the circumstances of the appellant's case, argued that appellant had not paid the interest which was supposed to be paid for the period from duty due till duty is paid. His further submission is that Order-in-Original clearly reveals that through investigation, such non-payment of duty has come to the knowledge of respondent-department and the intention of the service provider was also evident from the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission needs no further proof and when appellant admits through the statement of its manager that Service Tax was not paid and Service Tax registration was not obtained with its full knowledge, the same would establish a clear case of suppression against the appellant. Under the circumstances, duty on room service charges at a reduce calculated rate along with interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 and penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was rightly involved. Further, having regard to the first proviso which was effective from 04.04.2011 till the effective date of implementation of Finance Bill of 2015 which is admittedly effective after April 2015, appellant is liable to pay 50% of the duty demand as pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
