TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 809
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ency's Service", "Storage & Warehousing Service" and "Cargo Handling Service". During the course of verification of records of the assessee by the Internal Audit Party of the Service Tax Commissionerate, Bangalore, it was noticed that, the assessee had received services from abroad, viz. Management service/advise, Data Communication, use of Trademark, etc. The services imported by the assessee are taxable services and are chargeable to Service Tax but they had not paid the Service Tax applicable on the same. The assessee were liable to pay the Service Tax on import of such services as a recipient as provided under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The value of import of services and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alue of taxable service. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned consultant for the appellant submitted that imposition of penalty under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act is in contravention of the provisions of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act. He further submitted that the service tax along with interest has already been paid by the appellant before the issuance of show-cause notice. It is his further submission that Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, in unambiguous terms states that when assessee has paid the service tax either on his own or on the basis of the officer's ascertainment and inform the officer of such payment, then the said Section does not give any power to such officer to issue a show-cause notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh - 2017 (47) S.T.R. 345 (Tri.-Chan.) l. Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, LTU, Mumbai - 2016 (44) S.T.R. 82 (Tri.-Mumbai) m. Surya Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh-II - 2016 (43) S.T.R. 479 (Tri.-Chan.) n. CST, Bangalore Vs. Motor World - 2012 (27) S.T.R. 225 (Kar.) 4. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellants suppressed the facts as the appellant has failed to disclose the said fact in their returns. He further submits that had the audit not detected the fact of non-payment, it would have gone unnoticed. 5. After considering the submissions by both the parties and perusal of the provisions of Section 73, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1....