2011 (4) TMI 914

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bsp;   (iii) Penalty equal to service tax demanded imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act);     (iv) Penalties imposed under Sections 76 & 77 of the Act. 2. The appellant is an authorized service station and a dealer in vehicles manufactured by M/s Hindustan Motors Ltd, M/s Eicher Ltd, M/s Premier Automobiles Ltd. and M/s Honda Motorcycle & Scooters India Pvt. Ltd. Briefly, the facts of the case are that during the period October 2003 to March 2008, the appellant was found to have engaged in rendering services classifiable under 'Business Auxiliary Services' (BAS), renting of immovable property services, authorized service station services and maintenance & repair services. Vide the impugne....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r of pre-deposit of the dues adjudged against the appellants, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that all the relevant records pertaining to its activities had been scrutinized by the Internal Audit party of the department for the period July 2001 to May 2005 and report issued on 13.7.2005, Similar audit was conducted also in the year 2007. The impugned demand has been raised on the basis of the same records which had been scrutinized by the Internal Audit party. It is submitted that the impugned demand pursuant to Show Cause Notice dated 24.2.2009 was barred by limitation as there was no wilful mis-statement or suppression on the part of the assessee. The records were studied in detail during the audit conducted by the internal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not reflect the impugned activity and the proceeds realized. Therefore the Commissioner had rightly invoked extended period to confirm the demands. He submits that the appellants should be put to strict terms. 5. On a careful consideration of the case records and the submissions made by both sides, we find considerable force in the submission by the learned Counsel for the appellants that there was no suppression on its part. Since all the financial records relating to the activities in question had been subjected to scrutiny by the Internal Audit party of the department in 2005 and 2007, there were no additional material based on which show cause notice was issued and adjudication proceedings concluded. It appears to us that the procee....