2016 (11) TMI 18

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....; appellant provided the advertising services.   There is no much  dispute raised regarding the taxability  of the services.  Shri. Neeraj Roy, Chief Executive Officer of the appellant company has  admitted that they were not making payment of service tax dues promptly and same was due to serious financial crunch  and losses suffered by it.  He admitted service tax liability and mentioned that they had no intention to evade service tax, they were showing  tax liability in their balance sheet and they have been paying their outstanding  in instalment.  After admitting the service tax liability of Rs. 54,63,548/- they voluntarily  deposited  service tax as under: Sr. No. TR-6 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in installment from time to time and the major  amount of service tax was already paid  before issuance of show cause notice.   He submits that  the non payment of  service tax  in time has occurred due to serious  financial crisis  for the reason that  in and around March, 2000 world over, the information technology  industry  suffered a major  set back.  The so called 'dotcom bubble' burst world over and the dotcom crash' took place subsequently.   The ripple  of the same  were felt in India to a large extent  as the major  work force in the Information Technology industry hails from India.  Due to this crisis which struck the informa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....; can be allowed.  Regarding the penalties he submits that  it is admitted fact that  the appellant had collected the  service tax and not discharged, therefore  no immunity can be granted to the appellant from  penalties.  He placed reliance on the following judgments: (a)  Mickinsey & Company INC. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. & Cus., Mumbai[2007(6) S.T.R. 420(Tri. Mumbai)] (b)  Sri Bhagvathy Traders Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin[2011(24) S.T.R. 290 (Tri. LB)] (c)  Punjab Advertising Co. Vs. Commr. Of C. Ex. & S.T. Panchkula[2013(31) S..T.R. 233(Tri. Del)] (d)  Bombay Intelligence Security (I) Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of S.T.  Mumbai-II[2015(38) STR 588(Tri. Mumbai)] (e)&nb....