2017 (9) TMI 363

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Exploration of Mineral services with effect from 16.11.2004. During audit of accounts, it was noticed that the appellant delayed payment of service tax on several occasions to the tune of Rs. 2,67,31,766/- and have not paid interest for such delayed payment. It was also noticed that they have not paid service tax of Rs. 4,48,583/- in respect of services provided to other customers during the May and June 2005. Show cause notice dated 28.2.2008 was issued raising the above allegations and after due process of law, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,71,80,349/- being the service tax for the period 10.9.2004 to 31.3.2007 along with interest and also appropriated the amount of Rs. 2,67,31,766/- which was already paid by t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion under Exploration of Mineral, oil and Natural gas service vide S.T. Regn No. AAAFJ3189KST001 on 16.11.2004. The appellant vide their letter dated 25.11.2004 once again put forth before ONGC that the accepted rates for 2004-05 are excluding service tax and hence service tax, if any payable is to the account of ONGC. Copy of the letters dated 16.09.2004 and 25.11.2004 were furnished before the authorities before. The appellant paid service tax of Rs. 1,27,793/- on 28.05.2005 to the exchequer voluntarily without any recovery from ONGC. However, as ONGC refused to pay service tax the appellant thereafter could not pay service tax. Further, appellant had entered into contract with M/s. M/s. Geofizyka Tourn (GT) to provide shot hole drilling ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... requires to be remanded to the adjudicating authority. 4. Against this, the ld. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that there was deliberate delay as well as non-payment of service tax on the part of the appellant. The same would not have come to light but for the audit conducted by the department. Therefore, the penalty imposed is legal and proper. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. On behalf of the appellant, it is submitted that they are not contesting the liability to pay service tax. The main argument put forward are with regard to penalty imposed. It is submitted by ld. Counsel that in fact the appellant had paid the entire service tax liability and interest ....