9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ead the investigation .The Appellant has been receiving money from their client for the services rendered, but failed to pay service tax. From the statements recorded, it is evident that the Appellant was aware of the service tax liability on the services rendered by them. Thus, there was an intention to evade payment of service tax on the part of the appellant. Accordingly, penalty has been rightly imposed by the adjudicating authority under Section 78 of the Finance Act. Since the entire tax confirmed in the impugned order has already been paid, the adjudicating authority has given the option of payment of 25% of the tax amount as penalty. The appellant had already paid the 25% of the duty as penalty, albeit under protest . Thus, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant is before us. 3. In their submissions, the appellant stated that they have paid the entire service tax demanded in the notice along with interests on 03.06.2011, ie, before issue of the Notice. The payment has been accepted by the adjudicating authority and recorded in the findings of the order-in-original dated:26.04.2013. In spite of the payment, the adjudicating authority invoked extended period alleging suppression of fact and imposed penalty equivalent to the duty demanded under section 78 of the Finance Act 1994. 4. The appellant stated that they have not suppressed any information from the department. There was no intention to evade payment of Service Tax. When the liability of Service Tax was pointed out by the department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us occasions. we observe that the adjudicating authority has given a finding regarding suppression of facts involved in this case in the impugned order, which is reproduced below: .It appears that the notice raised periodical bills and received gross payment of Rs.1,72,92,377/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Two Lakhs Ninety-two Thousand three hundred Seventy Seven) from M/s Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. during the period from March 2009 to September 2009 towards the taxable service rendered by the notice as Work Contract Service to their client but did not pay the service tax into the Government account within the stipulated time as per the statue. It is evidently proved that the notice received gross taxable service amount of Rs.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertificate of M/s Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd as well as Bank Statement of the said notice that they received gross service value of Rs.37,03,264/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs Three Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Four only) during the month of April 2010 for the Service receiver and tax liability comes to Rs.1,46,537/- (Rupees One Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Seven only) but they did not pay Service Tax for the month of April 2010 and purportedly shown the said Challan i.e.. Challan No.03 dated 05.04.2010 for deposition of Service Tax of Rs.6,10,230/- twice their ST-3 returns, once for the period October 2009 to March 2010 and April-2010 to September 2010 . It is also learnt that the notice did not file or submit revised retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
