Tribunal affirms service tax demand and penalties, citing failure to contest earlier, suppression of facts.

The Tribunal upheld the confirmation of a service tax demand of Rs. 2,41,790 against the assessee, along with a penalty, due to the appellant's failure to contest the demand earlier. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalties, citing the appellant's suppression of facts and failure to deposit tax amounts received. Despite the appellant's attempt to challenge part of the demand before the Tribunal, it was rejected based on the lack of contestation earlier, the amount involved, and the significant time lapse. The appeal was denied, affirming the decision on the service tax demand and penalties.

---

---

Issues:
1. Confirmation of service tax demand against the assessee along with penalty imposition.
2. Challenge to the imposition of penalty by the appellant.
3. Contesting the demand before the Tribunal on the grounds of the value of goods supplied not being considered in the value of services.
4. Estoppel argument by the Revenue due to non-contestation of demand before the Original and Appellate Authorities.
5. Prayers for remand and rejection of the appeal based on the amount involved and the duration of the case.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the confirmation of a service tax demand of Rs. 2,41,790 against the assessee, coupled with an identical penalty, with an option for reduction if the demand is paid within 30 days. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the appellant admitted the service tax liability but contested only the penalty imposition. The Commissioner upheld the penalties, emphasizing the appellant's suppression of facts and failure to deposit the tax amount received from a party into the Government Account, indicating an intention to evade tax. The Commissioner rejected the appeal based on these grounds.

The appellant, represented by their advocate, acknowledged not contesting the demand before the Commissioner (Appeals) but sought to challenge around Rs. 38,000 of the demand before the Tribunal. The challenge was based on the argument that while providing Business Auxiliary Services, the value of goods supplied should not be included in the service value. The Revenue argued that the appellant, having not contested the demand earlier, should be estopped from doing so now. They highlighted the impracticality of verifying facts from records dating back 10 to 12 years.

The Tribunal, after considering both sides' submissions, refused to entertain the appeal. They noted the lack of challenge to the Commissioner's findings on non-contestation of the demand, the relatively low amount involved, and the significant time lapse of over 12 years. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, maintaining the decision on the service tax demand and penalties.

---