2016 (1) TMI 440

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. The brief facts are that there was an audit of the financial records by the revenue audit team and it appeared that the appellant had not deposited service tax on receipt of Rs. 3,24,950/- being taxable service during the period 2010-11. Accordingly, a letter dated 18/1/12 was issued under section 66, 67 and 68 read with section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 to the party to deposit the service tax with interest due on the receipt of Rs. 3,24,950/-. Further, a letter dated 06/02/12 was given by hand to the representative, Mr Kishan Singh wherein the appellant was asked to produce the financial documents for the financial year 2010-11, to cross verify the receipt and service tax liability thereupon for the period 2010-11 and 2011-12. Howev....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation was submitted at the time of personal hearing but the same is not sufficient in view of the continuous default in the past prior to issue of SCN and accordingly imposed penalty of Rs. 67,000/- being @Rs.200/-per day for delay of 354 days that is for the period 6/2/12 to 7/11/13. And further penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the Director Mr.Anil Kishore under section 77 (1) (c) (iii). 4. 'Being aggrieved the appellant and the director preferred appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dismissed the appeals on the ground of limitation. Being aggrieved, the appellant company have filed appeal before this Tribunal. So far as the director is concerned, it is informed that he has not filed further app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....position of penalty which is subject matter of this appeal, Accordingly prays for setting aside the penalty imposed upon the appellant company. 6. The ld.DR relies on the impugned order. He further states that in spite of several notices about 6 in number including two summons, the appellant have failed to appear and/or appear and seek clarification as to the exact requirement by the revenue. In this view of the matter the penalty imposed is fit to be confirmed. 7. Having considered the rival contentions I find that although there was some confusion as the document desired was "financial statement/documents", not specifying the particular document, the same led to confusion with the appellant in making timely compliance. Further I fin....