TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 797
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eriod 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010, the appellants have not discharged the applicable service tax on the services rendered by them; Central Excise Division, Patiala vide various letters requested the appellant to supply copies of balance sheets, ledger accounts etc. and to deposit the applicable service tax with interest; the appellants have deposited the amount of Rs.44,17,569/- along with interest. A Show Cause Notice dated 14.10.2011 was issued to the appellants seeking to demand service tax of Rs.46,36,744/- and seeking to impose penalties while seeking to appropriate the amount paid by the appellants; original authority vide Order dated 06.06.2012 confirmed the demand of service tax and imposed equal penalty under Section 78 and penalty of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... service tax liability of Rs.2,19,175/- was fastened on the appellants mistakenly on account of the reimbursable expenditure on diesel that was used by the appellants in thegensets used for the maintenance of the towers. It is clear from the agreement that the expenses incurred on the diesel consumed shall be reimbursed to the appellants on actual basis. In support of his arguments, learned counsel relies on the Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. - 2013 (29) STR 9 (Del.) [affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court - 2018 (10) GSTL 401 (SC)] and C.C.I. Logistics Ltd. - 2021 (54) GSTL 27 (Tri. Kolkata). 4. Shri Shivam Syal, learned Authorized Representative for the Department, takes us through Rule 5 of Service Tax (Determination ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....summons by the Department, the plea that Show Cause Notice has been issued despite payment of service tax is not acceptable. The service tax paid require to be confirmed by a speaking order. He further submits that there is no provision that the adjudicating authority is required to give an option to the appellants to pay 25% of the penalty; in fact, it is the appellant who was required to avail the provision of Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. 6. Learned Authorized Representative relies on the following cases and submits that the adjudicating authority has rightly imposed the penalty; the appellant having not availed the option to pay 25% of the penalty within the stipulated period, cannot take the plea at this juncture: Penins....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 78, we find that Revenue argues that the appellant did not pay applicable service tax, did not file Returns during the relevant period; only after the Revenue issued series of letters, the appellants deposited the tax with interest; the appellants are not new to the service tax and were, in fact, paying service tax and filing Returns before and after the impugned period; the appellants have recovered the service tax from their customers and therefore, there is no reason for them not to deposit the same with the Government Exchequer; there can be no better manifestation of intent to evade payment of tax than in this case. On the other hand, the appellants submit that during the relevant period, they were facing financial problems and k....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... resignations. It is beyond comprehension that only payment of service tax gets disturbed. 10. Moreover, we find that the appellants have taken the plea that as the Audit team did not find any discrepancy, extended period cannot be invoked. We find considerable force in the submissions of the learned Authorized Representative for the Department that the audit did not consider the issue as the Department was otherwise seized of the same and has written number of letters to the appellant and only as a consequence, the appellants have discharged their tax liability along with interest. Argument on the basis of ST-3 Returns filed after payment of tax only after being asked to pay duty by the Department is of no avail. 11. It is the argume....