2024 (4) TMI 334

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....outh Zone Bench, Bangalore [Hereinafter referred to as 'Appellate Tribunal']. 2. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of the present appeal are that the respondent-Assessee was issued with a show cause notice dated 19.10.2012 by the Office of Commissioner Of Service Tax, Service Tax Commensurate, Bengaluru, requiring the Assessee to furnish balance sheets for the period from 2007-08 to 2011-12 and the various other documents for the said period. The Assessee responded to the said show cause notice and furnished certain documents. Subsequently, vide Order-In-Original dated 31.03.2016 which was issued on 27.04.2016 it was held that the Assessee had suppressed the facts with intent to evade payment of service tax within the meanin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....taxable services vis-à-vis the figures shown in the Balance Sheet. b) Whether the CESTAT was right in setting aside the penalty under Section-78 of the Finance Act, 1994 in respect of Construction of Residential Complex Service (other than Villas) provided by them for the period-07/2010 to 03/2012?" 5. Learned standing Counsel Smt. Vanita K.R for the Appellant/Revenue, vehemently contended that the respondent is guilty of suppression and that the Appellate Tribunal has erroneously relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory v. CCE A.P. 2008 (9) STR 314 (SC) and held that they are not guilty of suppression. Further, it is contended that the earlier show cause notice was issued for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lleged suppression for the subsequent period of 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2012 does not arise. 10. In the case of Nizam Sugar Factory, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: "9. Allegation of suppression of facts against the appellant cannot be sustained. When the first SCN was issued all the relevant facts were in the knowledge of the authorities. Later on, while issuing the second and third show cause notices the same/similar facts could not be taken as suppression of facts on the part of the assessee as these facts were already in the knowledge of the authorities. We agree with the view taken in the aforesaid judgments and respectfully following the same hold that there was no suppression of facts on the part of the assesse....