2015 (10) TMI 2292

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6 of the Finance Act 1994 has been set aside by the first appellate authority. 2 Sh. S.P. Siddhanta (Consultant) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that show cause notice dt 20/7/2009 was issued to the appellant after 16/05/2008 when Sec 78 of the finance Act 1994 was amended. That as per amended Sec 78 of the Finance Act provision relating to simultaneous imposition of penalties under Sec 76 & 78 of the finance Act 1994 was not attracted. That in view of Karnataka High Court's order in the case of CST Bangalore Vs The people's Choice [2014 (36) STR 10 (Kar)] penalty is not impossible. Learned consultant made the bench go through Para- 2 & 4 of this order to argue that simultaneous imposition of penalties under Sections 76 & 78 of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (Tri-Mumbai)] 3.1. On the issue of imposition of Sec 78 penalty Learned AR argued that appellant in the ST- 3 returns filed, gave a wrong declaration that all the assessed tax has been paid when in fact Service tax was collected from the customers but not paid to the department till detected by the departmental officers. That the act on the part of the appellant was clearly malafide & extended period and imposition of penalty under Sec 78 of the Finance Act 1994 were fully justified Learned. AR thus strongly defended the order passed by the first appellate authority with respect to Sec 78 penalty imposed upon the appellant. 4. Heard both sides & perused the case records. Following issues are required to be answered in these appeals:- (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his question was framed at the stage when the appeal was admitted on 16/09/2011. 3. Admittedly, show cause notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Service Tax Division01 , Bangalore, on 06.10.2004 calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why the service tax amounting to 79,43,346/- on the gross amount of 15,95,08,866/- realized by them, for security services tax amounting period from 16th October, 1998 to 31 st March, 2004, on which service tax had not been discharged, but had become payable under Section 68 of the finance Act, 1994 (for short 'Act') as amended should not be demanded under the provisions of Section 73(1) of the Act invoking the extended period of limitation, and why it should not be recovere....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....taneous penalty under Sec 76 is not imposable upon the appellant when show cause notice was issued after 16/05/2008 when amended provisions of Sec 78 of the Finance Act 1994 were existing. Revenues appeal is therefore, liable to rejection. 6. So for as imposition of Sec 78 penalty upon the appellant is concerned it is the case of the Learned consultant that true disclosure of duty paid made was reflected in the periodical ST-3 returns filed with the department. It was his case that where Service tax was not paid challan numbers were not indicated and penalty under Sec 78 is not imposable because there was no suppression with intention to evade payment of tax. It is also the alternative submission of the appellant that benefit of Section-8....