TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (11) TMI 89
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 69 of the said Act having registration number CFA/AHD-I/131 dated 18-2-2002. 2.A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 7-11-2002 alleging that the noticee was receiving the goods (lubricants) from the premises of their principal IOC Limited, Mumbai, warehousing these goods, providing security for them and maintaining the account for the receipt and dispatch of the same. It was also alleged that the appellant was providing these services both as Dealer Operated Lube Godown (DOLG) and thereafter as an ad hoc CFA (clearing and forwarding agent). The appellant had received Rs. 31,85,157/- as commission for the period from 1-9-1000 (sic) (2000) to 31-6-2001 as DOLG and was liable to pay service tax of Rs. 1,59,258/- at 5%. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... limitation of five years for assessment under Section 73(a) of the said Act. The Assistant Commissioner found that the appellant had failed to disclose the value of taxable service and suppressed it and thereby evaded the service tax by not filing the returns under Section 70 of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder for the said period and therefore was liable to be penalty under Section 78 of the Act. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,83,950/- of service tax under Section 68 and adjusted the amount of Rs. 1,24,659/- already paid on 25-2-2002 and imposed penalties of Rs. 15,100/- under Section 76, Rs. 1000/- per return (total Rs. 2000/- under Section 77, for failure to file prescribed service tax returns on two occ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the amnesty scheme, which was declared as per the CBEC circular dated 20-9-2004. He relied upon the decision of the Single, Member Bench in CCE, Bhopal v. Industrial Army, reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 526 (Tri.-Del), in which the appeal filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalties on the ground that, "there was no tangible and logical reason as to why the law abiding assessee who had got himself registered more or less in time and had also started paying the service tax along with interest, much before the new scheme became operational, should be denied the benefit of waiver of the penal provisions referred to a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 (2) S.T.R. 150 (T) = 2006 (73) RLT 21 (CESTAT-Del.) in support of this submission. It was also submitted that appellant had suppressed its liability to pay service tax for the earlier period even though the returns were filed for the subsequent period. 7.As noted above, the appellant was registered as a service tax provider in the category of clearing and forwarding agent under Section 69 of the Act and was allotted registration number on 18-2-2002. The contention that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the amnesty scheme which was brought into force under the Circular of the CBEC dated 20-9-2004 is ex facie wrong and unwarranted. A bare look at the said circular would show that it was a scheme intended for "instant registratio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax along with interest, much before the new scheme became operational, should be denied the benefit of waiver of the penalty". 8.It is evident from the wordings of the scheme as announced under the Circular dated 20-9-2004, that it was intended only for instant registration of service providers, who could make declaration to the department with regard to past liabilities towards the service tax and interest payable. 9.Furthermore, it transpires from the material on record that the appellant had withheld the information by not filing the returns in respect of the period from 1-9-1999 upto 31-06-2001. It has been found by the authorities below that during the said period, the appellant had rendered services of taxable value of Rs. 31,85,15....