2014 (12) TMI 1164

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng to Rs. 11,34,998/- under section 73(1) and appropriated the amount of Rs. 15,60,722/-. Also appropriated interest leviable which was Rs. 4,25,724/-. The learned Advocate pointed out that separate equivalent penalties have been imposed under section 76 and section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. The option of reduced penalty of Rs. 4,25,724/- as above was granted to them. A penalty of Rs. 5000/- was also imposed under section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Learned Counsel pointed out that they have rendering two types of services first related to providing service of renting of immovable property and second related to providing service of repair and maintenance. Out of total liability, Rs. 6,84,250/- related to the renting of immovable pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vice Tax under the head maintenance and repair service, therefore, Service Tax was required to be paid on the taxable service along with interest as this service was covered under head Maintenance and Repair. Actually appellants were under bona fide belief that their service was covered under category of Authorized Service Station and were liable to Service Tax at the prevalent rate as per Section 65(64) of the Finance Act, 1994. The details of amount received against providing of taxable services is detailed below for the period from 2005 to 2010 hereunder (as per details in para 8 of IAR No. 423/09-10). Financial Year Service Charges Received Rs. Rate of Service Tax Amount of Service Tax 1 2 3 4 2005-06 2012281 10.20% 205253 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Further these services attracted levy of Service Tax w.e.f. 2001. Instead of paying tax on demand from R.O. (first letter written to them on 17-5-2010), they went on merely collecting information about other tax payers who were defaulters (pages 114-120 of the appeal). Intent to evade was reflected. 8. Reference was made to the High Court decision of Rajasthan (which is also jurisdictional High Court) in the case of Vodafone Digilink Ltd. [2013 (29) S.T.R. 229 (Raj)] wherein it was held that the non-disclosure by a professionally managed corporate such as the present one, attracted application of the extended period of time. It was apparent that Cenvat credit of higher amount was unduly claimed, it was nowhere disclosed in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant disclosed that it was under bona fide belief that service provided by the appellants as visiting network service provider was exempt and not taxable, the appellant would have clearly guided the department to understand its claim on set off Cenvat credit. Failure to make such disclosure in return for submitting entire fact by any letter accompanying its return appears to be a case of willful suppression. Suppression does not vanish by mere passage of time to issue of show cause notice and contravention of law gets no immunity from penal consequences. Suppression corroborated by an untrue declaration in the return filed calls for levy of penalty. When the return contains a declaration as to the self-assessment particulars stating that....