9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1959X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable to pay the service tax on the service of repair and maintenance but under some mistaken belief they failed to discharge their service tax liability. Coming to know of their apparent liability, they sought clarification from the department and on the basis of records and details provided by them, the department issued a show cause notice dated 24/10/2011 amounting to Rs. 5,97,219/- from April 2006 to March 2011 invoking the extended period. The adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 12/03/2013 confirmed a demand of Rs. 1,90,958/- alongwith interest and imposing penalties under Section 76,77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. After excluding the value of cost of materials and providing the eligible small-scale exemption for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice tax from the Superintendent, Service Tax Range, Udaipur. It was on the basis of guidance sought by them that the department conducted audit of their concern and after collecting the information provided by them, the demand was raised which was confirmed by the adjudicating authority and further upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the charge of wilful suppression on their part does not sustain. The learned Counsel has relied upon the case law in Vulcan Industrial Engg. Co. P. Ltd.Vs. Commr. of C.Ex. Ahmedabad reported at 2006 (194) E.L.T. 331(Tri.-Mum.) and Eagle Detective Agency (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of ST, Bangalore reported as 2010 (19) S.T.R 773 (Tri-Bangalore) in support of their submissions that where the assessee had thems ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly confirmed along with interest and imposition of penalties whereas the eligible deductions has already been given in the adjudication order reducing the demand from Rs. 5,97,219/- in the show cause notice to final confirmation of demand of Rs. 1,90,958. Accordingly he has pleaded to dismiss the appeal. 4. After carefully going through the facts of the case and rival submissions, we agree with the learned Departmental Representative that the appellant has failed to fully justify their bonafide belief to the non-taxability of the impugned services. Accordingly we hold that the extended period has been correctly invoked and consequent interest and penalties are also justified in this case. 5. In view of above, we hold that there is no meri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
