TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 832
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e face on record. 2. The extended period of limitation invoked by the Department was set aside by the final order in Service Tax Appeal No.486 of 2009 of SES Act and was challenged in C.E. Appeal No.3 of 2020 before this court. The penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was waived by the Commissioner under Section 80 of the Finance Act, for the reason that there was reasonable cause for the failure to pay Service Tax. The Tribunal accepted the contention raised by the review petitioner and held that, since there was no intention to evade payment of service tax the invocation of the extended period of limitation is unavailable. Through the judgment under review, we have held that, merely because the review petitioner was exonerat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e branches but stated that the non-payment of Service Tax was not intentional, due to system failure. On receipt of the reference on short payment by the department, the entire differential amount of Service Tax was remitted from 22.08.2007 to 12.12.2007. This statement was recorded on 04.01.2008. 5. The primary question to be answered in the review petition is whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record to review the judgment. Admittedly, Service Tax was paid by the individual branches till 31.03.2007 and from 01.04.2007, centralised registration was taken. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has not fully disclosed the value of taxable service for the period from 10.09.2004 to 31.07.2007 in the ST 3 Returns. 6. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....report on 02.08.2007, the bank had remitted the differential amounts. The period from 2004 to 2007, around three years, the bank cannot contend that due to system failure, they were not able to remit the Service Tax. The Commissioner in the order in original paragraphs 15 and 16 has categorically found that there had been a suppression and directed imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Act and refrained from imposing a penalty under Section 78. Therefore, the argument of the review petitioner that, there is no finding that there has been suppression of any information and not intended to evade payment of Service Tax does not hold good. 9. Another ground raised by the review petitioner is that there has been a mistake in paragraph 1....