TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 706
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reafter, summons were issued and statements were recorded. The appellant did not contest their liability to pay service tax and deposited the entire service tax along with interest of Rs. 5,07,132/-. 2. In the above scenario, proceedings were initiated against the appellant by way of show-cause notice proposing imposition of penalty in terms of the provisions of section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. After due adjudication, penalty of identical amount was imposed under section 78 by original adjudicating authority and further penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed under section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The said order of adjudicating authority was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) and hence, the present appeal. 3. I find the only ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of malafide, thus invocation of the penal provisions is justified. Section 73 (3) is applicable only in those cases where there is no malafide or suppression or misstatement etc., with an intention to evade payment of duty. As in the present case, the appellants have collected service tax from their customers but were not depositing with the exchequer, nor even intimating the Revenue about their liability to pay, it is a clear case of malafide, suppression, mis-statement etc. 5. After appreciating the submissions made by both sides, I find that there is no dispute on the facts that the assessee is under a legal obligation to file the requisite returns provided under the statute and to discharge its service tax liability accordingly. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6.2 The question required to be decided in the present appeal is whether such non-payment of service tax by the appellant was on account any one of the ingredients mentioned in the said Section 78. As already observed, the appellant was registered and was paying service tax but for the period involved in the present appeal. The said non-payment was detected by the department on investigations made against them. It cannot be held that such non-payment of service tax or even non-disclosure of the value of the same in the return was on account of the non-receipt of compensation from the clients as they were collecting service tax from their customers. Even otherwise, I find that the payment of service tax is the legal obligation of the servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce on him, the requirement of serving any show-cause notice gets diluted and the same is not required to be issued. However, sub-section 4 of Section 73 is to the effect that sub-section 3 shall not apply in a case where service tax has not been levied or paid on account of fraud; willful mis-statement; or suppression of facts. As I have already held that non-payment in the present case was on account of suppression and with malafide, the provisions of Section 73 (3) would not get attracted. 8.1 For the above proposition, I refer to and relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Rajasthan Spinning Mills (supra) reported as 2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) laying down that when the statute provides mandatory penalty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td, Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai reported as 2006 (1) S.T.R. 289 (Tri-Chennai) has observed as under:- "After giving careful consideration to the submissions, I find that the only reason stated by the assessee in their reply to the show-cause notice for the delay of payments of service tax, is financial crisis. Financial crisis is a universal plea, which could be made by any assessee. If it is accepted as coming within the meaning of the expression "reasonable cause" under Section 80 ibid, the penal provisions of Section 76 to 79 of the Finance Act will be just dead letters this cannot be the legislative intent Hence financial hardships cannot be brought within the purview of the expression "reasonable cause" used in Sectio....