2018 (5) TMI 558

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he business of assaying of gold ornaments and was also functioning as a BIS authorized hallmark center. They have taken centralized Service Tax registration under the service category "Technical Inspection and Certification', covering the branches at Ernakulam and Trissur. On verification, it is seen that they have not taken service tax registration for their newly added 3 branches at Kollam, Trivandrum and Palakkad. Also the appellant had not paid the service tax due for the period from April 2010 to November 2010. Accordingly, a show-cause notice No.57/2011-ST dated 2.8.2011 was issued to the appellant for the period from April 2010 to November 2010. The adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand along with interest and appropriated ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....HENNAI Lupin Ltd. vs. CST: 2017 (4) TMI 856 - CESTAT MUMBAI CST vs. C. Ahead Info Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.: 2012 (53) VST 215 (Kar.) CST vs. Prasad Bidappa: 2012 (26) STR 4 (Kar.) M/s. Bharat Forge Ltd. vs. CCE: 2016 (1) TMI 260 - CESTAT MUMBAI VIR Teja Roadlines vs. CCE: 2012 (27) STR 290 (Tri.-Ahmd.) 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that in the present case the appellants have collected the service tax but did not deposit the same in Government Treasury. He further submitted that the appellants have not given any cogent reason for not depositing service tax in spite of the fact that they have collected the same from their customers. He also s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cases relied upon by the learned AR, it has been held that if the assessee has collected the service tax and has not deposited the same in the Government Treasury, then they are liable to pay penalty. With regard to penalty imposed under Section 77(2) is concerned, the appellant has produced the return which was filed belatedly by him along with penalty of Rs. 2,000/-. Since the returns have been filed with the penalty, therefore, there is no justification for imposing penalty under Section 77(2) of the Act. As regards the penalty imposed under Section 78 is concerned, in the present case, the Assistant Commissioner has imposed equal penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and has not afforded an opportunity to pay 25% of Service ....