9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the earlier point of time. It is also admitted fact that they have not charged the service tax from the service receiver, nor they have collected with any bills. Further, on being asked by the Department, they have approached the Hindustan Zinc Ltd. and again deposited the tax substantially - there is no case of any suppression or mis-statement of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or Rules made out against the appellant. Neither the extended period of limitation is available to the Revenue nor imposition of penalty under Section 78 is justified - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No.51536/2018 - FINAL ORDER NO.50850/2019 - Dated:- 5-3-2019 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. The appellants were under the belief that they are neither liable to service tax nor they had made any compliance, nor they were so advised by the service receiver,- M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Further, the admitted facts on record are that sometime in July, 2012. The Society was advised by the service receiver company that their services are liable to service tax and as such, they obtained registration and started paying service tax w.e.f. September, 2012. Show cause notice dated 21.04.2014 was issued pursuant to the inquiry made for the tax for the preceding period, on the basis of the data provided by the appellant. The demand was raised for the period October, 2008 to September, 2012, amounting to ₹ 7,95,749/-, invoking th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the appellant. As regards the grounds for allowing cum tax benefit, the same was denied observing that the appellant had recovered the service tax from the Hindustan Zinc Ltd. and deposited with the Government exchequer. So far as the penalty under Section 78 is concerned, it was confirmed observing that the default in payment of tax was detected on receipt of intelligence and initiation of investigations by the Department. Under such circumstances, imposition of penalty is mandatory. Further, penalty under Section 77 (1)(a) for not obtaining service tax registration and penalty under Section 70 for non-filing of the service tax returns of the Finance Act is dropped. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the ruling of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd. 2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC) observed that the interpretation of Section 11AC is pari materia with Section 73 of the Finance Act and accordingly, the counsel prays that penalty imposed under Section 78 may be set aside. 11. Ld. AR for the Revenue defended the impugned order and has also relied on the ruling of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh Vs Stesalit Ltd. 2017 (347) ELT 385 (SC), wherein the issue before the Hon be Supreme Court was whether the Tribunal had rightly reduced the quantum of penalty imposed under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 173 Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Relying on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
