2015 (8) TMI 955

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3. Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order only on the ground that the adjudicating authority has dropped the proposition for imposing penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. Learned D.R. appearing for Revenue submits that the respondent herein has not discharged the service tax liability despite informing them that they are supposed to do so; Commissioner has failed to appreciate the fact that the assess had collected the service tax but failed to deposit the same with the Government account due to financial crisis, cannot be a reason for non-discharge of service tax in time. It is his submission that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills 2009 (238) ELT 3 (S.C.) wherein the Hon'ble Sup....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rary forthcoming from the record that the assesse deceited the government by adopting any fraud or suppressing the fact from the department. If the intention of the assessee is to fraud the government, he would not have shown the gross amount received from his clients in the returns filed by him. There is a clear admission in the show cause notice that the gross amount received from the clients is different from the amount shown in the returns. The SCN also admits that the assessee has adopted his own method in calculating the tax. But there is no allegation of any deceit method in adopting his own method. Therefore, the assessee due to ignorance did not take the correct assessable value. The assessee also submits that he did not have any p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of total demand of Rs (51, 45, 290/- + Rs. 1, 72, 114/-- Rs. 53, 17, 404/-). According to the assessee, the differential duty comes to Rs. 9,480/-as against Rs. 1, 72, 114/- which has been agreed to be paid along with interest by the assessee on receipt of the order. The difference was due to wrong adoption off assessable value over a period involved in the Show cause notice. The value, according to the assessee, was to be based on date wise actual receipt. Whereas the show cause notice adopted gross receipt without considering the actual receipt. I have gone through the Annexure and I found that computation adopted by assessee was correct as the same was based on actual receipt of consideration. It can be seen from the above re-produced....