2007 (7) TMI 94

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....elligence, the officers visited the premises of the appellants in August 2005. On scrutiny of the records and investigation, it was found that the appellants had not paid service tax due from them for the period April 2000 to March 2004. It was also noticed that after taking registration in April 2003, the appellants were not filing the service tax returns in prescribed form and shown less value of the taxable services provided. On the conclusion of investigation, show cause notice was issued to the appellant demanding service tax payable by him for the period April 2002 to March 2003. It was also proposed to impose penalty on the appellant under the provisions of Sections 76, 77 & 78. It is seen that during the course of investigation, on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....interest thereof before the issuance of show cause notice. He relies upon the decision of the case of CCE v. Gaurav Mercantiles Ltd., as reported at 2005 (190) E.L.T 11 (Bom.). 5. Ld. SDR on the other hand submits that the issue is not as simple as it is being made out by the applicant. It is his submission that the appellants having taken registration in April 2003 should have paid the dues of service tax for the period prior to taking registration. It is also his submission that the appellants did not approach the department for classification as regards his service tax liability for the earlier period. it is his submission that but for the intelligence and subsequent investigation carried out by the revenue, the entire amount of duty ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....authorities on the appellants under Section 76 & 77. 9. As regards the penalty imposed under Section 78, it is seen that the appellants have been canvassing before the adjudicating authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals), that they were not aware of the provisions of Service tax. It is also seen from the records that the appellants has been canvassing that they were not guided properly by the Consultant and they were under the impression that the service tax liability for the earlier period has to be paid as and when the payment for the services rendered are received. This view could have been entertained by the appellants on the guidance on the consultant, it is also seen that the appellants had not approached the revenue for an....