2025 (9) TMI 675

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iod 01.07.2012 along with interest and penalty under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The appellant is a partnership firm providing various services viz. Transport of goods by Road, Clearing & Forwarding Agency, Business Support Service, Renting of Immovable Property Services etc. and availing CENVAT Credit of service tax paid on various input services. 3. The appellant was registered with service tax for providing 'transportation of goods by road" and 'business support service', but they failed to get themselves registered in respect of 'renting of immovable property service' and 'clearing and forwarding agency service'. 4. During audit of records of the appellant, it was found that the appellant during the period 01.04.2010 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erned with the service tax confirmed for the period April 2010 to June 2012 under the category of 'Business Support Service' as defined under Section 65(104c) of the Act. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant has raised a preliminary objection as to the invocation of the extended period of limitation as there is no case of wilful suppression. The learned Counsel has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Dehradun, CESTAT New Delhi-Final Order No.55590/2024 dated 19.04.2024. 7. Before adverting to the argument raised by the learned Counsel, we note that show cause notice was issued on 15.04.2016 for the period April 2010 to Dece....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e course of investigation. The appellant have clearly suppressed the taxable value in the ST-3 Returns submitted by them. Hence it is clearly a case of suppression of fact which warrants invocation of extended period and imposition of mandatory penalty. The order passed by the adjudicating authority imposing penalty under Section 78 ibid is correct and does not warrant any interference. However, since the amount of service tax liability to the tune of Rs7,90,700/- has been set aside the quantum of penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority shall also get reduced by this much amount. Accordingly, the amount of penalty is reduced to Rs.38,88,346/- (viz. Rs.46,79.046/-minus Rs7,90,700/-] from Rs46,79,046/- imposed by the Adjudicating Author....