2009 (8) TMI 469

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under the category of "Rent-a-Cab services" and "Business Auxiliary services". Shri Alok Khanna is also Director of M/s. Vindhyachal Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Superintendent of Central Excise, Range-Sehore while scrutinizing the record of the Company noticed that the assessee had not paid tax in respect of Rent-a-Cab services and Business Auxiliary Services. In the month of January, 2007, the Superintendent of Central Excise directed the assessee to deposit the tax along with interest. The assessee on 24-1-2007 paid service tax of Rs. 1,90,902 and Rs. 2,56,833 for the period from 1-4-2000 to November, 2006 in respect of Rent-a-Cab services and for the period from 1-4-2004 to 31-3-2006 in respect of Business Auxiliary Services. They also paid t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Tribunal. It is contented that they have not collected the tax from the M/s. Vindhyachal Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. It is also submitted that Shri Alok Khanna merely signed the challan of M/s. Vindhyachal Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. which cannot be treated that he had knowledge of the levy of the tax. It is a case of non-payment of tax due to bona fide belief and therefore section 80 of the Act is liable to be invoked. 3. Ld. DR on behalf of the revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal in respect of setting aside the penalty under section 76 of the Act. He also reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of upholding penalty under sections 78 and 77 of the Act. His contention is that Shri Alok Khanna, Partner of the asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or of the other Company, which was registered with the Service Tax Authority. Thus, the case laws as relied upon by the ld. Counsel are not applicable to the present case. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of this particular case, I find that there is a contravention of the provisions of the Act with intent to evade payment of tax, so, the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly upheld the penalty under sections 77 and 78 of the Act. The appeal filed by the assessee has no merit. 5. It is seen that the assessee duly recorded the transactions in their records and also filed the returns after detention by the Officers and, therefore, imposition of penalty under section 76 are not warranted and order of the Commissioner (Appeal....