2018 (8) TMI 1279

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....these 5 appeals against different impugned orders passed by the Commissioner whereby the Commissioner confirmed the demand of service tax on the services rendered by the appellants in relation to chit funds during different period. The issue involved in all the 5 appeals is identical. Therefore all the 5 appeals are being disposed of by this common order. The details of appeals are under:- Appeal No. Impugned order Period Tax demand Penalty ST/20174/2016 CAL-EXCUS-000-COM-018-15-16 DT 27/10/2015 April 2012- December 2012 Rs.86,518/- Rs.10,000/- Rs. 86,518/- ST/20321/2016 CAL-EXCUS-000-COM-041-15-16 DT. 30-11-2015 October 2007 to December 2012 Rs.7,14,737/- Rs.10,000/- Rs. 7,14,737/- ST/20106/2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... it appeared that the declaration filed by the declarant was substantially false. Whereas it appeared that the appellant had contravened Section 106(1) of Finance Act, 1994 (VCES Act), Section 66/66B, 67 & 68 of the Finance Act, 2013 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 4, 6, & 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 inasmuch as they had failed to declare their tax dues under VCES, to levy & pay service tax, show-cause notice No. 158/2014-ST dt. 03/12/2014 was issued asking them to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 2,12,001/- should not be demanded from them under Section 111 of the VCES Act read with proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act along with interest at the appropriate rate for the delayed payment, under Section 75 ibid and with pro....