2016 (11) TMI 319

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se is that the appellant is engaged in the service of Commercial Construction Service, Works Contract and Goods Transport Services. The appellant during the period April 2007 to December 2007 did not pay the service tax in time. The matter was taken up with the appellant by the department vide letter dt. 31.1.2008 directing the appellant to pay service tax liability and produce the evidence of payment of the same. The appellant furnished the documents such as Profit & Loss Account, Ledger Extracts vide the appellant's letter dt. 4.6.2008. The department observed that the appellant failed to discharge service tax liability in time as specified under Section 68 read with Rule 6(1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and as such half yearly returns....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntire transaction of the services provided in their books of account. The appellant had paid the service tax along with interest before issuance of show cause notice without contesting the same. Therefore the case of the appellant is squarely covered by Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. According to which, after payment of service tax and interest, even the show cause notice was not warranted, accordingly question of penalty does not arise. She submits that the delay in payment of service tax is only due to financial difficulty faced by the appellant. However, the service tax liability has been discharged without any protest. Therefore the appellant is entitled for the waiver of penalty invoking Section 80 also. In support she placed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ennai) (vii) Commissioner of C.Ex., Jaipur-I Vs. Science Center 2008 (9) S.T.R. 138 (Tri.-Del.) (viii) Mett Macdonald Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur 2006 (2) S.T.R. 524 (Tri.-Del.) (ix) Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III Vs. Machino Montel (I) Ltd. 2006 (4) S.T.R. 177 (P & H) (x) K. Madhav Kamath Brothers & Co. Vs. Commr. Of C.Ex., Mangalore 2015 (38) S.T.R. 249 (Tri.-Bang.) 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that in the present case the appellant admittedly recorded the entire transaction of their provision of service in their books of account. The appellant had no intention to evade the service tax which along with interest was discharged before the issuan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the amount of short payment of service tax or erroneously refunded service tax, if any, as may be determined by the 3[Central Excise Officer], but for this sub-section. 4[Explanation (2)-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no penalty under any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made there under shall be imposed in respect of payment of service-tax under this sub-section and interest thereon.] (4) Nothing contained in sub-section (3) shall apply to a case where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short- paid or erroneously refunded by reason of- (a) fraud; or (b) collusion; or (c) wilful mis-statement; or (d) suppression of facts; or (e) contravention of any....