9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Service Tax registration and were not discharging the appropriate Service Tax liability. It was noticed by the lower authorities that the contracts contained all the terms and conditions for carrying out maintenance and repairs of ship. The quotations were agreements and the liability of payment of Service Tax arises in those cases. Coming to such a conclusion, the appellants were served with show cause notice dated 10-10-2006 directing them to show cause as to why:- * Service Tax amounting to Rs. 73,50,486 (Rupees seventy three lakhs fifty thousand four hundred eighty six only) and Education Cess of Rs.1,47,0 10 (Rupees one lakh forty seven thousand and ten only) should not be demanded from them under section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice tax continues so, however, that the penalty shall not exceed the amount of service tax that they failed to pay. (4) I also impose a penalty of Rs.1,000 (Rupees One thousand only) under section 77 of the said Act for failure to file ST-3 Return under section 70 of the said Act read with rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. (5) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 74,97,496 (Rupees seventy four lakhs ninety seven thousand four hundred and ninety six only) under section 78 of the said Act for suppressing the material facts from the notice of the department with an intent to evade service tax. 3. Shri A. K.J. Nambiar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, contended before us that the issue involved in this case is for a per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithout putting the appellant to notice. This is bad in law. Moreover, the clarification of the Director General is contrary to the instructions of the Government. The entire period of dispute is prior to 16-6-2005. After the amendment on 16-6-2005, the appellant is paying service tax. It has been clarified by the Government that even if maintenance is carried out under any contract apart from other services, the appellant is not liable to pay service tax prior to 16-6-2005. In order to levy service tax prior to 16-6-2005, a pure maintenance contract is a must. In the present case, there is no evidence that the appellant had entered into a maintenance contract with their customers. There is substance in appellant's contention that the nature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
