2013 (11) TMI 763

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....facts of the case are that appellant has been registered as a service provider from January, 1997. Appellant was filing regular ST-3 returns till 31.03.2000 but suddenly failed to file regular returns from 01/04/2000 to 31/03/2004 and also did not deposit the service tax payable. An investigation was initiated against the appellant and the entire Service Tax, along with interest, was paid by the appellant before issue of show-cause-notice. This appeal is thus filed by the appellant for non-imposition of penalties under Sec. 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Sh. Paritosh Gupta (Advocate) & Sh. Kuntal Parikh (Adv.) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that as per Chennai Commissionerate-III Trade Notice No. 18/2004-ST dt. 23/09/2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d the case records. The period involved in the present proceedings is 01/04/2000 to 31/03/2004 and the entire differential service tax and interest was paid by the appellant before the issue of Show cause notice. One of the arguments taken by the appellant, inter-alia, is that the amnesty scheme introduced by CBEC as per Chennai Commisonarate-III Trade Notice No. 18/2004-ST dt. 23/09/2004 is applicable to their case. Para 1, 2 and 3 of this T.N. are reproduced below:-              The Hon'ble Finance Minister has announced a taxpayer friendly Scheme registration of those service providers who have not got themselves registered so far. This scheme aims to register all service pro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellant's argument that benefit of Amnesty Scheme was admissible to them is not acceptable and is rejected. 6. So far as imposition of penalty under Sec. 78of the Finance Act, 1994 is concerned appellant argued that they were registered and were paying service tax liability partially. It was appellants case that the department was aware of their registration and accordingly penalty under Sec. 78 cannot be imposed. Penalty under sec. 78 of the Finance Act 1994 is imposable when tax payer evades service tax payment by reason of fraud, collusion, wilful suppression or misstatement with intention to evade duty payment. In the instant case there was a delay in payment of service tax liability and statutory provision exist to the effect tha....