9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 831X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the records of the appellant were verified and a SCN was issued demanding Service Tax of 20,27,851/- for the period 01.04.2011 to 30.09.2014, the appellant paid only 1,50,000/- during the course of investigation. Penalty u/s 77 and 78 - HELD THAT:- Once the appellant has accepted the liability which was confirmed by invoking the extended period then he is liable to pay penalty as per the provisions of Section 78 of the Act. Since the entire demand is raised on the basis of the books of accounts shown by the appellant where all the transactions were recorded - Since, in the present appeal, the appellant has not contested the demand therefore the extended period has rightly been invoked and penalty under Section 77 78 has rightly been imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r contesting only the imposition of penalty on them and the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the appellant. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order imposing the penalties under Section 77 & 78 are not sustainable in law as the same has been imposed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the appellant in the present appeal is only contesting the penalties and is not contesting the demand. He further submitted that the original authority while confirming the demand has not given him the benefit of CENVAT credit of Service Tax paid on rent which the appellant is entitled to get as per law. He further submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hadreshwara Transport Vs CCE, 2010 (18) STR 621 (T). * Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd. Vs CST, 2016 (42) STR 118 (T). 5. On the other hand, learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellant was liable to pay the Service Tax but he did not pay the same nor he field any Returns and also not got himself registered with the Service Tax Department. He further submitted that the appellant has conceded the tax liability and has only challenged the various penalties imposed on him under Section 77 & 78. He further submitted that in spite of acceptance of the liability, till today the appellant has only paid ₹ 1,50,000/- towards the Service Tax demand and has not paid the remaining amount which clearly shows that he has no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim the CENVAT credit of Service Tax paid for input services. In reply to his SCN also, he has not claimed the CENVAT credit of input services and therefore both the authorities have rightly denied the CENVAT credit of input service in the absence of valid claim made by the appellant. Further, I find that once the appellant has accepted the liability which was confirmed by invoking the extended period then he is liable to pay penalty as per the provisions of Section 78 of the Act. Further, I note that since the entire demand is raised on the basis of the books of accounts shown by the appellant where all the transactions were recorded. Therefore, in view of proviso to Section 78(1), the appellant is liable to pay the penalty up to fifty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
