TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 958
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved with the impugned order the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal. 2. Briefly stated the fact of the case is that the appellant is engaged in providing taxable service of 'Commercial and Industrial Construction Service' and 'Manpower Recruitment of supply services' under Section 65 of Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') to their clients. Acting upon the intelligence that the appellant is not paying appropriate service tax even after collecting the said amount from their customers/ service provider for the services provided by them, the departmental officer visited the registered premises of the appellant on 26/07/2012. The appellant found to be engaged in providing services to M/s Lanco Infratech, Korba and M/s L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in a position providing of any document relating to credit of Rs. 21,04,105/- shown in their first ST-3 return filed on 20/04/2010, as the person in charge of service tax has left the company and he agreed to pay the amount. Shri A K Sharma also deposed that there is no proper co-relation with credit availed and utilised by them. 3. It was also accepted by Shri A K Sharma that there is wide gap between the figure as reflected in the balance sheet and the amount received and amount retained by service receiver; * That they have also done some work relating to exempted service like relating to road work which is exempted from service tax. In nutshell, entire liability was accepted by Shri A K Sharma in his various depositions made before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that there was deliberate suppression of fact and defiance of law by the appellant. The appellant were under bona fide belief that the service tax is not liable to be paid on the retention amount and also the service tax amount withheld by the service recipient. (iv) That Ld. Adjudicating authority has wrongly imposed penalty under Section 76, 77, 78, of the Act along with penalty of Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, without mentioning as to how there was a deliberate defiance of law with intention to evade the payment of service tax. It was also submitted that the adjudicating authority has erred in imposing penalty under both the Sections 77 and 78, which is not permissible under the law for the period after to 10/05/2008 when the law i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xtended period of limitation is thus not available to the department. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside of the impugned order by allowing the appeal. 7. However, Ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue submits that this is a clear cut case of non payment of service tax by the appellant even after their realisation from the recipient. The fact about the non payment of service tax has been accepted by Shri A K Sharma, Proprietor of the appellant in their statement recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act read with provisions of Section 83 of Finance Act. In fact, the appellant themselves has voluntarily agreed to pay the service tax not deposited to the exchequer. It was, therefore, prayed that there is no infirmity in the impugned....