TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 436
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair The appellant admittedly provide 'Works Contract Services and Consulting Engineering Services'. During the period July, 2008 to September, 2009 they provided services and recovered the service tax from the client but not paid to the Government exchequer. The appellant failed to file the ST-3 Returns in the prescribed format. Accordingly, the show cause notice was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rest before issuance of show cause notice. The period involved is a normal period of demand, therefore it is the case of delay payment of service tax which at the most attract interest. He further submits that the non-payment of service tax is due to severe financial crunch to the appellant. There was no intention to avoid the payment of service tax. He also submits that out of the total demand an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent account. They also not declared the service tax liability in the ST-3 Return filed. This shows that there is a deliberate attempt to avoid the payment of service tax. In this circumstances excuse given of financial crunch for non-payment of service tax cannot be accepted. All the case laws cited by Ld. Counsel is on the issue of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 wherea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 289 (Tri.-Chennai) (viii) Jupiter Sea & Air Services Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Chennai-I - 2006 (3) S.T.R. 704 (Tri.- Chennai) 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides, we find that the issue lies in narrow compass i.e. only penalties under Section 77 & 78 as there is no contest on the demand of service tax. We find that the appellant have collected the service tax fro....