2019 (7) TMI 336

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eals-I), Pune is assailed in this appeal. 2. Factual back drop of the case, in a nutshell, is that appellant is engaged in the business of lodging, restaurant and bar. During investigation conducted by the respondent-department, it was found that appellant had not taken Service Tax registration and had not paid the Service Tax for the period between May, 2011 to March, 2015 for which it was put to show-cause notice, duty demand was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority along with interest and penalty to the tune of Rs. 19,83,479/- which was accepted by the appellant except Service Tax demand on room rent service charge on the ground of mis-calculation and penalty imposed on the appellant which was challenged before the Commissioner (Ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sstatement or suppression of fact. Alternative plea taken by learned Counsel for the appellant is that proviso to Section 78(1) of the Finance Act 1994, as was in force during the relevant period, clearly prescribed penalty @ 50% of Service Tax so determined in cases where the detail regarding transactions are recorded in the specified record of the appellant and going by the Order-in-Original as well as show-cause notice, it would clear reveal that only on the basis of records maintained by the appellant, such duty demand was raised and confirmed for which 50% of the duty demand as penalty would have been imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals). He prays to set aside the order of Commissioner (Appeals) only to the extent of penalty confirmed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the factually correct as per evidence available on record and agreed by learned Counsels for both the parties. However, considering the fact that appellant had placed his reliance on the statement of its own manager recorded by the respondent-department where the only plea taken by the appellant was financial difficulty in not registering the firm despite the fact that show-cause notice revealed huge turnover of Rs. 2,46,97,756/- for providing temporary accommodation service to the customers, paucity of funds cannot be a ground for non-registration of the firm. Further, as per Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, admission needs no further proof and when appellant admits through the statement of its manager that Service Tax was not paid a....