9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liability to pay service tax. Without going into the detailed facts, it would be suffice to take note of that for the period 2009-2014, that certain conclusion was arrived at against the petitioner that the required amount of service tax was not paid by them. As a consequence thereof, by the order dated 04.09.2017 of the Commissioner GST and Central Excise, Guwahati a penalty of Rs. 11,48,82,644.00 (Rupees Eleven Crore Forty Eight Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Six Hundred Forty Four) was imposed on the petitioner under the 1st Proviso to Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Against such levy and imposition of penalty, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Regional Bench, Kolkata. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the other hand as already noted a penalty of Rs. 11,48,82,644.00 (Rupees Eleven Crore Forty Eight Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Six Hundred Forty Four) was imposed on the petitioner. Because of such mistake in the entry made in the form submitted by the petitioner, the respondent authorities had rejected the claim of the petitioner under Scheme 2019, on the ground that incorrect declaration was made. 6. In the circumstance, the only issue before the Court would be whether the claim of the petitioner for the benefit under Scheme 2019 would stand rejected as because of the aforesaid mistake of not mentioning the penalty or a different view can also be taken in the matter. Admittedly the Finance Act, 1994 wherein, Scheme 2019 has been incorpor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner was that the penalty imposed was stated to be zero whereas it is already on record that the respondent authorities had imposed a penalty of Rs. 11,48,82,644.00 (Rupees Eleven Crore Forty Eight Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Six Hundred Forty Four). In our view the mistake made by the petitioner by not stating about the penalty imposed upon them in Form SVLDRS-1 cannot be said to be a mistake by which the petitioner claimed an undue benfit which they otherwise are not entitled under the law. When we look into the Scheme 2019, we do not find any provision which provides that a person upon whom a penalty is imposed would not be entitled to the benefit given under the scheme. Infact on the contrary the provision of the Scheme 2019 may be such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
