2018 (11) TMI 1525

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n being directed by the CESTAT vide its remand order bearing no. A/86080/17/SMB dated 23.02.2017. 2. Factual back-drop of this case is that the preventive section of the commissionerate of Excise sought information from the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL), Panvel (R) division concerning names of farms engaged by it in manpower supply and execution of works contract services and obtained information about the appellant's engagement therein. Further enquiry revealed that appellant had evaded payment of Service Tax on such manpower supply to MSEDCL. Investigation was conducted and records of appellant were scrutinised. Service Tax liability to the tune of Rs. 19,01,905/- was worked out. Appellant was put to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d reduced the penalty from Rs. 19,01,905/- to Rs. 18,65,432/- which was also equivalent to the tax liability recalculated at 10.3%, while waving off penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 that corresponds to the taxable turnover below the threshold limit of Rs.10 Lakhs, for which the appellant was held to be entitled to be covered under exemption Notification No. 06/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005. 3. In its memo of appeal and during the course of hearing of the appeal, the Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. S.G. Thakur contended that penalty should not have been imposed in violation of the rules when Service Tax along with interest is deposited before issue of such show-cause notice. Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng order and needs no interference by this Tribunal. Referring to para 7.7 and 7.8 of the Order-in-Appeal, Learned AR has drawn the attention of this Tribunal that the appellant had not filed return for the period 2008-09 till the date of passing of the order and the differential payment was not made till February, 2013. He further submitted that since the entire case was detected by preventive section based on the information collected from the service receiver and the subsequent delay of return filed by the appellant was not in conformity to the turnover shown in its return with the turnover detected, there was clear suppression of fact with intention to evade duty for which penalty was justifiably imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals). ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the Department also reveals that appellant had not declared their Service Tax liability correctly for which he imposed penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Penalty under Section 77 to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- was also imposed as appellant had failed to furnish the periodical ST-3 returns in contravention to Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994. 6. During the course of hearing of the appeal, nothing has been brought forth by the appellant as to why there was mis-match in the return and actual turnover of the appellant, while return was not filed till the case was detected by the preventive section of the Department after obtaining the information in writing from MSEDCL regarding manpower supply by the appellant and why it had....