TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 796
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the primary adjudication order dated 05.02.2013, passed by the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Allahabad. 2. During 2006-2007 to 2010-2011 the respondent -assessee had provided commercial or industrial construction service and works contract service to several entities for commercial purposes. The assessee neither obtained registration for providing taxable services during the initial period nor remitted the service tax on commercial or industrial construction service; and w.e.f. 01.06.2007 on works contract service. The assessee obtained registration for providing commercial or industrial construction service only on 26.06.2009 and for works contract service on 30.03.2010. 3. The Anti Evasion Branch of the Central Exc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e service recipients nor Revenue officials had advised the assessee about its liability to tax. Assessee further pleaded that since the service tax due alongwith the interest thereon was deposited prior to issuance of show cause notice, no proceedings should be initiated nor penalty imposed. 5. By the primary adjudication order dated 04.02.2013, the Joint Commissioner confirmed the demand of service tax and appropriated the amounts already remitted towards the demand; imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 77 of the Act, for violation of Section 70 read with Rule 7; imposed late fee of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 70 of the Act and a further penalty of Rs. 10,96,375/- under Section 78 of the Act; and ordered for appropriation of Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emit the service tax due, amounts to violation of the provisions of the Act, inviting the application of the 1st proviso to Section 73 of the Act which is also the provision and the conditions set out in sub-section (4) of Section 73 of the Act, which excludes of the applicability of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 73 of the Act. According to Revenue the learned appellate Commissioner erred in allowing the assessee's appeal and dropping penalties imposed under Sections 77 and 78 of the Act. 8. Section 73(3) of the Act enjoins that where any service tax has not been paid or short paid but has been paid subsequently on the basis of the assessee's own ascertainment of the liability or on the basis of the tax ascertained b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration received therefor. The failure of the assessee to remit service tax even immediately after obtaining service tax registration for CICS on 26.03.2009 therefore leads to the clear presumption of conscious knowledge of the liability to tax and of the failure to remit the tax with an intent to evade the same, in violation of the provisions of the Act. Even prior to 26.03.2009, on a plain reading of the provisions of Section 65(25b) of the Act the assessee cannot claim to have been under any doubt as to having provided the specified taxable service. The appellant cannot be to heard to plead that it was ignorant of the law and that such ignorance is predicated on the fact that it did not go through the provisions of the Act Ignorancia juri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....where such service tax and the interest payable thereon is paid within thirty days from the date of the communication of the order determining the liability, the amount of penalty liable to be paid by such person under the first proviso to Section 78 shall be 25% of such service tax. The Gujarat High Court in CCE&C, Surat-I vs. Harish Silk Mills - 2010 (255) ELT 393 (Guj.), the Madras High Court in CCE, Chennai-lll vs. Motherson Sumi Systems Ltd. - 2014 (301) ELT 225 (Mad.) and another decision of the Gujarat High Court in CCE, Ahmedabad-lll vs. Ratnamani Metals and Tubes Ltd. - 2013 (296) ELT 327 (Guj.) have ruled that when no such option is given earlier to the assessee, the same benefit could be provided either by the Tribunal or by the ....