2017 (1) TMI 100

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n investigation was started and they were summoned four times but the noticee failed to respond or produce the required records. It was only 16.11.2007 that the noticee appeared before the Central Excise Authorities and submitted the Balance Sheets of his firm for the year ending 31.03.2003, 31.03.2004, 31.03.2005, 31.03.2006 and 31.03.2007. However he did not submit any bill issued to his clients. The relevant information was collected by investigating officers from various BSNL offices based on which a show cause notice was issued. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that they are only contesting the imposition of penalty and are not contesting the confirmed demand. He submitted that there was no malafide intention and the shor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not match. As such, the suppression and intent to evade service tax were rightly upheld by the Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. After hearing the parties and examining the records, I find that the noticee has deliberately been avoiding to present his financial records before the authorities. The noticee did not join the investigation, did not submit basic records like bill books, ledger, accounts books which indicates that information was deliberately withheld from the authorities with an intent to evade the tax. As per the agreement, payment of services by BSNL was made on pre-receipted bills complete in all records. Despite such elaborate system, the appellants did not provide the required information to calcula....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld as under:- Thus, in the appellant s own case involving similar demand, penalty under Section 76 ibid was set aside and option to pay reduced (25%) mandatory penalty was extended. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that the appellant is located in Rajasthan, which is neither under the jurisdiction of Gujarat High Court nor under the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court. Therefore, notwithstanding the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CST-II v. Top Security Ltd. (supra), we would have been inclined to follow the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Ratnamani Metals & Tubes (supra) [2013 (296) E.L.T. 327 (Guj.)], more so because it has already been followed in respect of a similar demand in the appellant s own....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... A132 (S.C.) (Rajashree Dyg. & Ptg. Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner). While dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court passed the following order : Application for oral hearing is rejected. We have perused the Review Petition and record of the Special Leave Petition and are convinced that the judgment of which review has been sought does not suffer from any error apparent warranting its reconsideration. The Review Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The Supreme Court in its impugned order had dismissed Special Leave Petition filed against the order of the Gujarat High Court reported in 2014 (305) E.L.T. 442 (Guj.), wherein it was held that the benefit of reduced penalty of 25% imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944....