AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 484
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not to pay service tax. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are holder of service tax registration No.AABCS99952KST001 under the category of 'Goods Transport Agency' under section 65(105) (zzp) of the Act, and Registration No.AABCS9952KSD004 dated 09.11.2010 under taxable services category of 'Business Auxiliary Service' and GTA Services' under section 65 (105) (zzb) and 65 (105) (zzp) respectively of the Act. On scrutiny of records of the appellants, it was noticed that the appellant's unit had two divisions viz.(1) Textile division and (2) Online Business Marketing Division or Sarvodaya Online Business Marketing (M/s. SOBM) in short). In Textile Division, three units were engaged in manufacturing and weaving of grey fabrics....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; (a) The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur-II has not properly appreciated the findings of the original adjudicating authority that the assessee had not disclosed all material facts regarding actual value of GTA service in their periodical ST-3 returns filed with the Department. The detection was made after scrutiny of his records by the Anti-Evasion Wing. Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur-II wrongly extended the benefit of waiver of penalties under section 76, 77 and 78 of the Act, taking recourse to section 80 of the Act. (b) There was mens-rea on the part of the appellant as they have not deposited Service tax at their own. Non-payment of Service Tax continued for years. The payment w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on-payment of service tax due to some reasonable ground; that he was stopped from payment of service tax due to unavoidable reasons/reasons beyond his control inspite of his good intention to do so. Section 80 is reproduced below:- Section 80. Penalty not be imposed in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of section 76, section 77 or section 78, non-penalty shall be imposed on the assessee for any failure referred to in the said provisions, if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. 5. Department referred the judgement of High Court of Bombay, in the case of Riya Travels & Tours (I) Ltd. vs. Union of India-2011 (2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore penalty was not imposable on assessee. (c) In Meinhard Singapore Pte Ltd. vs. CCE-2013 (32) STR (Del.), it was held that if the liability to pay Service Tax was discharged by assessee even before issuance of show cause notice, then the liability to pay penalty cannot exceeed the 1/4th of the amount of Service Tax. 7. In view of above, Respondents contended that there was sufficient cause for failure to discharge of liability in time and no information was concealed from the department. It was intimated that 80% of service tax was paid voluntary before issue of show cause notice and this was fit case for invocation of section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 and penalty under section 76 and 78 were liable to be set aside. 8. Respondent also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was deposited. 11. Examination of balance sheets and other financial accounts for the year 2005-2006 to 2009-2010 have indicated that respondents have shown amount under the head of freight and cartage under the textile division and SOBM. Proper service tax was not paid as lesser amount of service tax was paid resulting in short payment of service tax amounting to Rs. 7,83,266/-. These discrepancies showing short payment of service tax came to surface when anti-evasion wing detected the evasion. Mens rea was manifested as respondents did not deposit the service tax of their own and non-payment of service tax continued for years. 12. From the facts above, I am convinced that revenue has made a case that there was no case at all justifyin....