2018 (7) TMI 1678

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Act, 1994, is that the multiple penalties imposed in the circumstances of the case were excessive. The assessee is engaged in providing commercial coaching and training services and therefore, he is subject to service tax levy under the Finance Act, 1994. It was registered as a service tax assessee and it appears to have not paid up his liability for the period 09.09.2004 to 31.03.2008, however, he filed its returns stating that there was no service tax liability. The Income Tax Search and Seizure proceedings apparently triggered investigations by the Service Tax Authorities. The Assesssee in these circumstances offered to pay service tax dues and filed returns on 02.03.2009. In the meanwhile, a show cause notice was issued on 23.06.2009....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... service tax; v. I confirm the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 4,64,867/- (Rupees four lakh sixty four thousand eight hundred sixty seven only) against the assessee i.e. M/s. N&N Chopra Consultant Pvt. Ltd. on the value of taxable service amounting to Rs. 43,53,501/- under Business Auxiliary Service and the same be recovered from them under Section 73 (1) read with Section 68 of the Act; vi. I confirm the demand of Cess amounting to Rs,8,165/- (Rupees eight thousand one hundred sixty five only) on the amount of service tax shown in para 70.5 against them under Section 95 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 read with section 66 of the Act; vii. I confirm the demand of SHEC amounting to Rs. 1,074/- (Rupees one thousand and seventy....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion and adverse orders, it apparently approached the service tax authorities and deposited the amounts which they were admittedly liable to pay. Such being the case of foreknowledge, in the opinion of the court, itself is an important factor that ought to have been and was taken into account by the lower revenue authorities. Hence, foreknowledge lead to the imposition of recovery of dues assessed as well as imposition of the penalty under Section 78. The court is of the opinion that the invocation of Section 78 cannot be faulted with having regard to the facts of this case. Depositing the amount due, by the appellant, before issuance of show cause notice per se does not absolve the appellant of its responsibility to file the returns, since ....