TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds penalty for deliberate non-payment of service tax despite financial difficulties.</h1> <h3>M/s. Dilip Chhabria Design Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise Pune-I</h3> M/s. Dilip Chhabria Design Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise Pune-I - TMI Issues:Challenge to order imposing penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.Analysis:1. The appellant, engaged in providing taxable services, was found to have not paid service tax from December 2011 onwards during a surprise visit by Revenue Officers in 2012.2. A Show Cause Notice was issued demanding service tax, interest, and imposing penalty, which the appellant contested citing financial difficulties as the reason for non-payment.3. The Commissioner confirmed the service tax demand and penalty under Section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.4. The appellant appealed to the Tribunal solely contesting the penalty imposition, claiming no willful suppression or misstatement and citing full disclosure in ST-3 Returns.5. The Tribunal upheld the penalty order, noting the appellant's awareness of the tax liability and deliberate non-payment due to financial difficulties, not ignorance or bona fide belief.6. The appellant argued no penalty was warranted as there was no suppression, relying on a Tribunal decision in a similar case.7. The Revenue supported the Tribunal's decision, stating no interference was required.8. The appellant accepted the service tax liability but failed to deposit collected amounts due to financial constraints, noticed only during the 2012 visit.9. The conditions for invoking extended limitation for service tax recovery under Section 73(1) are akin to those for penalty under Section 78, with the challenge focused on lack of willful suppression.10. Section 78 allows penalty for willful misstatement, suppression, or contravention to evade service tax payment, and the appellant's failure to remit collected tax demonstrated contravention with intent to evade payment.11. A relied-upon case was distinguished as non-payment was voluntary, not due to a surprise visit like in the present case, hence not assisting the appellant's argument against penalty imposition.12. The Court found no substantial question of law in the proposed issue and dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's penalty order under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
