2014 (9) TMI 214

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ecords and heard the learned Superintendent (Authorised Representative). 3. In a show-cause notice issued on March 14, 2008, the Department demanded a total amount of Rs. 1,11,809 from the assessee towards service tax and education cess for the period from January to October 2006 under section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, proposed to appropriate earlier payment of the said amount towards such demand, demanded interest on tax under section 75 of the Act and proposed penalties under sections 76 to 78 of the Act. The assessee contested the penal proposals mainly on the ground that they did not have any intent to evade payment of service tax and that the non-filing of returns and non-payment of service tax were merely on account of a bona fide....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndum of appeal, the appellant prays for setting aside the penalties imposed under sections 77 and 78 of the Act. In other words, the appellant is not serious even about interest on tax. As regards the penalties imposed on them, the prayer of the appellant is that their bona fide mistake may be excused and these penalties be "deleted". However, there is no explanation as to the so-called bona fide mistake. However, it appears from the tenor of the assessee's appeal that, as they discharged their duty liability without waiting for show-cause notice, the imposition of penalties on them is not justifiable. 4. The learned Superintendent (Authorised Representative) submits that there is no evidence of payment of interest on tax by the appell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was issued, would not alter the penal liability under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. It is argued that, section 11AC of the Central Excise Act being pari materia with section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, the apex court's ruling is applicable to the instant case. 5. I have found tremendous force in the submissions of the learned Superintendent (Authorised Representative). Apparently, in the instant case, there is no challenge to the demand of service tax for the extended period of limitation. If that be so, it should be held that the appellant has tacitly conceded "suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of service tax". One of the grounds for imposing penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is suppression ....