TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 6
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Director, Sh. V.S.Bobba and Sh. Ratnakar B., Chief Financial Officer, have filed three appeals against the common impugned order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand against the company and also imposed penalties to the tune of Rs. 1 Lakh on the Managing Director Sh. V.S. Bobba and Rs. 1 Lakh on Sh. Ratnakar B., Chief Financial Officer. These three appeals were filed before this Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal, M/s Menzies Aviation India Pvt. Ltd. availed the Sabka Vishwas Legal Dispute Resolution Scheme and the Competent Committee issued the Discharge Certificate in Form-IV and the appeal against the company was dismissed a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....L Express (India) Pvt. Ltd., it was notices, as per the Standard Ground Handling Agreements dated 09.09.2011, the appellant-I was issuing bills to various customers for providing services on the entire amount of delivery orders and collecting service tax, but paid service tax on only 40% of the Delivery Order fees indicated in the bills raised and has not paid the service on the remaining 60% of the delivery order fees collected. The appellant-1 had deducted 60% of the service tax collected from the customers in respect of the delivery order fees relating to DHL and had paid the service tax only on 40% of the said fees, though they had charged and collected service tax on 100% of the value of the said bills raised. On enquiry by the audit, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice tax. The service tax which was collected and short paid on the taxable value of Rs. 730033/- works out to Rs. 90232/-. The Department alleged that the appellant-1 had suppressed the above facts from the department with and intent to evade payment service tax, in as much as, the appellant-1 had not informed the department, the facts regarding the said activities. The act of suppression, had rendered the appellant-1 liable for invoking the extended period of five years under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Act and they are liable for penal action under section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.2. In view of the above, the appellant-1 appeared to have contravened the provisions of Section 68 and rendered themselves l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sued the Discharge Certificate which is on record but the application filed by Managing Director and the Chief Financial Officer was not found legally correct and was rejected. He further submitted that under the Scheme, once the main dispute has been settled by the company then the individual penalty on the officer is automatically goes as per the various conditions of the scheme but the Department has wrongly rejected the application filed by the Managing Director and the Chief Financial Officer. He further submitted that otherwise on merit also, the penalty is not liable to be imposed on the Managing Director and the Chief Financial Officer because the Department has not brought anything on record to show that how the Managing Director a....