TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 946
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... matter arises before the Tribunal for the second time. The appellant is a proprietary concern engaged in provision of 'Manpower Recruitment Agency' service. The appellant was registered with the department in the year 2001. During the period 2001 to 2005, the assessee did not remit the service tax nor followed other statutory formalities including filing of ST3 returns. Detecting irregularities, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reasoning for setting aside the penalty. We hold that there was no case for setting aside the penalty amount but the amount of penalty is required to be quantified. After hearing the appellant/assessee, the Commissioner should pass a detailed speaking order on the aspect of penalty. For this reason, the impugned order is set aside and matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo consider....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had not quantified the tax due and proposed to be recovered as required under the statutory provisions. However, on receipt of the notice, the assessee computed the tax and paid the same. The assessee was a proprietary concern and a lady. She submitted that she was under mental strain due to litigation for divorce from her spouse during the period. She had to attend her ailing father who was suffe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct. 3. The learned JDR submits that the assessee had registered with the department as provider of service in 2001 and regularly rendered the service without following the statutory formalities including payment of tax due. The Commissioner has rightly concluded that the assessee had intentionally evaded the service tax. 4. I have carefully considered the case records and rival submissions m....