TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (9) TMI 205
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x on the taxable services (b) Penalty of Rs. 1000/- per return on the appellants for their failure to furnish the prescribed return as contemplated under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 (c) Penalty of Rs. 1,13,850/- on the appellants under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were engaged in providing services under the category of "Business Auxiliary Services" to T.D. Power Systems Pvt. Ltd., but were not registered with the Central Excise Department and on a scrutiny of the profit and loss account for the year 2003-2004, it was noticed that the appellants have received a sum of Rs. 14,23,125/- from T.D. Power System Pvt. Ltd., which was shown under the head Miscellaneous Income.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve not suppressed any facts from the authorities and it was not alleged against him who has already paid the service tax and interest, the show cause notice was also not invoked on any suppression and not considered to be imposed any penalties. 7. The appellants further contended that the appellants were under the belief that the appellant is not covered under the service tax in the category of "Business Auxiliary Services", which was introduced from 1-7-2003 but he was under a bona fide belief that the services rendered by the appellant is of commission agent service and which was brought into the net of the service tax with effect from 10-9-2004. Although the appellants has paid service tax and penalty cannot be imposed under Section 76,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here was no suppression of the facts by the appellants as alleged by the department also in our view is not tenable. There is nothing on record to suggest if the appellants disclosed that they were rendering consulting services to the CAD. The service tax has been deposited by them only after the inquiry was conducted by the department regarding their activity. When the department came to know that they were engaged in providing consulting engineering ser vices to the CAD they then deposited service tax of Rs. 7,11,199/- still even leaving the balance of Rs. 2,00,215/- as unpaid. Therefore, keeping in view their conduct and facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the Commissioner has rightly charged them with suppression of m....