2017 (11) TMI 351

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t ORDER Per: Raju This appeal has been filed by Shri Sai Arihant Enterprises against confirmation of demand and imposition of penalty under Section 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant argues that they are engaged in provision of the supply of manpower services. He argues that a show-cause notice was issued to them after scrutiny of the records for the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e transactions appearing in the demand show-cause notice were disclosed in the Books of Account and therefore provisions of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 are rightly invokable in this case. He further pointed out that the appellant had paid Rs. 3,26,120/- as per the Order-in-Original and also interest amounting to Rs. 6,04,517/-. He argues that with delay in payment of Service Tax by appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ears starting on 2005-06 onwards. Since the appellant has not paid duty liability almost three years intent to evade payment of duty is established. He further argues that the date of knowledge of revenue is not relevant for the purpose of calculating in the period of limitation. He further argues that since the appellant has not paid duty and not declared the correct value in the ST-3 return exte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Service Tax is payable on the receipt basis and therefore the appellant liable to pay Service Tax only in respect of amount received by client. In these circumstances the question of financial hardship does not arise as the liability was to be discharged on amounts received. It is also seen that the figure mentioned in the Balance Sheet do not match with the returns filed by them. The appellan....