2010 (8) TMI 709

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....85/0 7 6 5 / 0 7 - C E dt. 16-2-07 August 02 to March 05 Rs. 22,880 Rs. 100 per day u/s 76 Rs. 500 u/s 77 Rs. 22,880 u/s 78 2. ST/242/0 7 100/07-CE dt. 07-3-07 August 02 to September 05 Rs. 83,104 Rs. 100 per day u/s 76 Rs. 83,104 u/s 78 3. ST/264/0 7 137/07-CE dt. 22-3-07 August 02 to March 05 R s . 4,87,867 Rs 100 per day u/s 76 Rs. 4,87,867 u/s 78  2. These matters stood posted for hearing on several dates. None of the respondents appeared on any occasion or sought adjournment. Same is the case today. In the circumstances, these matters are taken up for disposal.   3. All the respondents are engaged in providing 'Cable Operator Services' classifiable under section 65 (105) (zs) of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ii. CCE v. Shree Krishna Pipe Industries 2004 (165) ELT 508 (Kar.)   iii. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CCE [2005] 2 STT 117 (Bang. - CESTAT)   5.1 It is submitted that these authorities were challenged by the revenue before the appropriate appellate forum. These had not reached finality. The revenue has relied on the following decisions to argue that in a case of willful evasion of duty, liability to penalty under section 11AC did not stand excluded at the threshold merely on deposit of the amount after having been caught and before the issue of show cause notice.   i. CCE v. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. 2006 (202) ELT 398 (Punj. & Har.)   ii. Swastik Tubes (P.) Ltd. v. CCE 2006 (203) ELT 485 (Trib. - Delhi)   5.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... mis-statement, etc. enumerated under section 11AC incurred liability to penalty under the said provision. Payment of defaulted duty amount and interest before issue of show cause notice did not absolve the assessee from its liability to penalty prescribed under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. In view of this judgment, the Commissioner had relied on the decisions, which stood overruled. As the original authority had found that the impugned liability to service tax and interest had arisen on account of suppression of facts by the respondents, the demand of service tax, applicable interest and penalties imposed on the respondents by the original authority were in accordance with law. The impugned orders deserved to be set aside and th....