TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 254
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....due on taxable services provided by them, their premises was visited by the officers of anti evasion Pune 1 on 3.12.2012. It was observed that Appellants had not paid service tax from December 2011 onwards. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 25.2.2014 was issued to them demanding service tax of Rs. 1,93,17,035/- along with interest due on the same. Show Cause Notice also proposed penalty on the appellants under the provisions of Section 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. In their reply appellant did not contested the demand but stated that due to financial hardship they had not paid the service tax due by the due date. However in ST-3 return filed by them they had shown the service tax payable but not paid. They contended that non pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d have been imposed upon them. iii. In support he relied upon decisions in following cases a. CCE vs Adecco Flexions Workforce Solution Ltd. [2012 (26) STR 3 (KAR)] b. CCE vs Galaxy Construction Pvt Ltd [2017 (48) STR 37 (BOM)] c. C Ramchandran vs CST {2016 (46) STR 866 (T-Chennai)] d. CEA-Raj Construction vs CCE [Order No A/86655/17/STB dated 15.03.2017] 3.0 Arguing for the revenue Shri Roopam Kapoor Commissioner, Authorized Representative supported the order of Commissioner and submitted that since the Appellants have not paid the service tax due on time, the penalty under section 78(1) is completely justified. He further pointed to para 18.2 of the order in original, wherein specific finding has been recorded that during the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....350 (SC)] that "..... unless there is something in the language of statue indicating the need to establish the element of mensrea it is generally sufficient to prove that default in complying with the statue has occurred, In our view there is nothing in Section 271(1)(a) of the IT Act which requires that mensrea must be proved before penalty can be levied under that provision." iii. Union of India Vs M/s Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008-TIOL-192-SC-LB] that "It is delinquency of the defaulter itself which establishes his blameworthy conduct .... Without any further proof of existence of mensrea." iv. M/s Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills {2009 (238) ELT (SC) that ".....We completely fail to see how payment of differential duty, whe....