2017 (5) TMI 1089

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing agents for certain companies for purchase/import of crude oil. In the course of their business, the appellant acting as canalizing agent, supplied crude to M/s Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd.. They received certain consideration as commission for their activity. The said consideration is liable to service tax under the category of "business auxiliary service" in terms of Section 65 (19) of Finance Act, 1994. The service tax liability of Rs. 1,19,12,400/- for the taxable consideration they received during the period 2005-2006 to 2008-2009 was pointed out by the officers of DGCEI, Chennai, Zonal unit. Upon verification of records of M/s Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Manali the appellants were informed by the Department on 30/09/2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ved from their subsidiary units. However, in respect of commission received from Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., during the impugned period, the service tax was not paid by mistake. The same was not properly monitored due to change of personnel, incharge of the said operation. He further submitted that immediately upon receipt of information from the officers in September 2008 they have paid the service tax, alongwith interest for delayed payment, in the month of January 2009 itself. The present show cause notice is issued after almost 1½ years of such payment proposing appropriation of the amount and imposition of penalties. Section 73 (3) is rightly applicable for closure of case without further proceedings. The proceedings aga....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....able interest for the whole period the matter should have been closed. Proceedings initiated after almost 18 months of their payment is not legally justifiable. We find that impugned order recorded that when the show cause notice was issued, the appellant did not respondent and even the written submissions was filed after three years which shows the casual approach of the appellant. Other than that the Original Authority has only quoted the legal provision of payment of service tax in time and held that delay in payment is sufficient to invoke deliberate intention, suppression, fraud etc. Admittedly, the appellant did not discharge service tax in time. When pointed out they have paid the service tax with interest and intimated the departmen....