TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 105
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and waived the penalties under Section 76 and 78 by invoking section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 and also waived penalty imposed under section 77(2) on Shri Diwan Rahul Nanda, Managing Director of the Respondents Company. 2. The facts of the case are that the Respondent Company is engaged in providing Security Agency Service and liable to pay service tax for which they are registered with Central Excise department. Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), Ahmadabad conducted investigations for all the branches and Mumbai head office of M/s. Tops Security Ltd. wherein it was revealed that their Kolhapur branch was liable to pay service tax amounting to Rs. 57,14,760/- for provision of security service for the period 200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Revenue Appellant reiterates the grounds of the Appeal. He further submits that setting aside the penalty under Sec. 78 is not justified as the present case involves collection of service tax and non payment to the Government; it is admitted fact that actual gross amounts received from their clients, service tax payable are different from those reported in ST3 returns filed by their branch office from time to time; the respondent before the adjudicating authority taken stand that delay in payment of service tax is due to delay in receipt of payment of their service charges from their clients, however the respondent have not produced any evidence to this claim. He submits, in view of the above undisputed facts the Ld. Commissioner wro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be seen that both the Commissioners have signed at different dates that shows that Review decision is not unanimous decision of the committee and therefore appeal filed on the basis of such illegal Review order, deserves to be dismissed only on this ground. He further submits that this is a case of delayed payment of service tax and not evasion of service tax. He submits that it is incorrect to say that the respondents have recovered the service tax and did not deposit the same to the department. They have time and again submitted before the Adjudicating authority that huge amount of receivable payments from the client become bad debts which approximately amounting to Rs. 100 crores. In view of this fact it cannot be said that the responden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the present case is not case of evasion of service tax whereas there is only delay in payment of service tax which appellant have discharged their service tax liability alongwith interest. When the appellant, though could not pay their service tax liability in time, declared their liability in the ST3 returns, it shows that they are duty bound and undertake to discharged the service tax liability and it is on record that whatever demand was raised in the show cause notice and confirmed in the adjudication order, the same was paid by the appellant alongwith interest. Taking into consideration this undisputed facts, the Ld. Commissioner has passed very reasoned order wherein he has given the waiver of penalty under Section 76 and 78. The rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch level for proper appreciation of the information. They stated that the company has never attempted to intentionally evade the levy of service tax at any time. It is not correct to say that the information in ST-3 return is mis-declared. They have submitted the detailed worksheet before any investigation or any audit programme. As regards unpaid service tax, they shown readiness to pay the same along with interest. Hence, penalty u/s 76 should not be made applicable to them. They could not make service tax payments in time due to financial hardship and they have no guilty mind. As per Section 80 penalty of Section 76 can be waived. They placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CWT V/s Ellis Bridge Gymkha....