2016 (5) TMI 944

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bsp;Advocate for the Appellant Shri Rajeev Gupta, Commr. DR for the  respondent. ORDER The challenge in the present appeal is to imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,36,83,810/- (Rs. One Crore Thirty Six Lakhs Eighty Three Thousands and Eight Hundred Ten Only) imposed upon the appellant in terms of  the provisions of section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.  As per the facts on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g the confirmation of demand of service tax and, in fact, the same stands paid by them along with interest even prior to the issuance of the show cause notice. The challenge is only to the imposition of penalties. He further submits that it is correct that they were charging and collecting service tax from their clients but the same was not being deposited with the Revenue on account of financial ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of penalty in such cases and accordingly, supports the order of Original Adjudicating Authority. 5.  We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. 6.  There is no challenge to the confirmation of demand of service tax, which stands accepted by the appellant and stands deposited to a large extent, along with deposit of the interest. The only challenge is to imposition ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the appellant was under obligation to reflect their liability to the Revenue, by taking a registration and filing ST-3 returns. The use of the amount collected by the appellant from their customers in the name of the service tax, instead of depositing the same with the Service Tax Department, clearly reflects upon the malafide intention of the assessee. In such a scenario, the provisions of Sectio....