2017 (10) TMI 804

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e under Section 65 (105)(k) of the Act. The assessee has not discharged the service tax liability during the period 01/02/2066 to31/08/2006. Therefore, a show-cause notice dt. 20/08/2007 was issued to the assessee demanding service tax of Rs. 26,68,038/- being service tax on taxable services provided by them during the period 01/02/2006 to 31/08/2006 under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act, interest under Section 75 and penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Act. The adjudicating authority while deciding the case has observed that the assessee had deliberately suppressed the facts from the department with in intention to evade service tax payment as is evident as the assessee has neither filed the ST-3 returns nor declared the service....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the decision of the Tribunal. It is relevant to reproduce para 4.3 and 4.4 from the impugned order wherein the Commissioner(Appeals) has given legal reasoning, which are as under:- 4.3. As regards departments contention that penalties under Section 76 should also have been imposed, I am disinclined to agree with the same. The decision of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CCE Vs. First Flight Couriers Ltd. [2011(922) STR 622 (P&H)] clarifies the issue quite substantially. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced below:- Section 76 provides for penalty for failure to pay the amount while Section 78 provides for penalty for suppressing the taxable value. Section 78 is, thus, more comprehensive and provid....