TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1200
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax amounting to Rs. 40,02,421/- was issued and the same was culminated into adjudication order No. 10/ST/ADC/2012 dated 7-2-2012 whereby demand was confirmed and penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 were imposed. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) which came to be rejected therefore appellant is before us. In the present case appellant is challenging only imposition of penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant, however letter dated 2-8-2017 was filed by the advocate to decide the matter on merit considering grounds of appeal. In the ground of appeal, appellant submitted that they were entitled for waiver of penalty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecords. 5. We find that the limited issue to be decided by us is whether appellant is liable for penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78. On careful observations of the facts of the case, we find that appellant were neither paying service tax correctly nor even declaring in the ST-3 returns. The appellant have all along taken stand that they were not having knowledge of service tax provisions, at the same time they also averted that they were facing financial crisis, this contradictory reasons given for non payment of service tax. It is observed that if at all appellant had any bonafide intention, though they had not paid service tax in time, they could have very well declared taxable value in their ST-3 returns, they failed to do so, this c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lated parties. That such threads of evidences, without developing then) further through broad based investingations, should be considered to be 'full knowledge' of the department so as to disallow the invocation of extended period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 would be unwarranted and defeat the purpose of the said proviso. This is to be seen in the context of the Continuing defiance of law that the appellant is indulging in by not filing any Service tax returns even till date, after many years of being aware of his legal obligations in the matter. Section 78 pertains to penal provisions which run parallel to the demand in circumstances specified in proviso to Section 73(1) can be used as a useful guide in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid provisions and procedures or not. The answer is that he did not come forward voluntarily and did riot pay up the past arrears immediately. Even today, after many years of being aware of his legal obligations in the matter, part of service tax dues and most of interest due thereon, as per law, is still outstanding against him. Further the appellant is not filing any Service tax returns even till today. This continuing defiance of law and procedures is inexplicable and disentitles them-to any relief under Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994. c) With regard to the third point of determination, as regards the imposition of penalties under Section 78 as well as under Section 76, 1 find that as per proviso to Section 78, when penalty und....