TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 369
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (ii) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) upon the party under Section 77(1) (a) of the Finance Act, 1994 for contravention of the provisions of Section 69 of the Act read with Rule 4 of the Service Tax Act, 1994. (iii) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) upon the party under Section 77(1) (c) (1), 77(1) (c) (ii) and Section 77(1) (c) (iii) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. (iv) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) upon the party under Section, 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 for having contravened the provisions of Section 70 of the Act read with Rule 7 of the Act, 1994. (v) I also impose a penalty Rs. 1,58,963/- (Rs. One Lakh Fifty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Three Only) upon the party under the provisions of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, the Party has the option to pay 25% of the penalty payable, provided they pay the Service Tax, interest and penalty, imposed within a period of 30 days of receipt of this order." 2.1 On the basis of information received from the Income Tax Department that during the Financial Year 2016-17 appellant having PAN No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugned order. 2.7 Aggrieved appellant have filed this appeal. 3.1 When the matter was called, it was informed that Counsel for the appellant has filed an application for adjournment, however, I find that the issue is a very narrow compass and can be considered even in absence of the Counsel. 3.2 I have heard Shri Santosh Kumar learned Authorized Representative appearing for the revenue, who reiterates the findings recorded in the orders of the lower authorities. 4.1 I have considered the impugned orders along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of argument. 4.2 For upholding Order-in-Original, impugned order records as follows:- "5.3 After going carefully through the facts of the case on the basis of documents/records available on the case file, I find that the Adjudicating Authority has not decided the case on merits due to want of documentary evidences as the appellant neither appeared nor produced any documents. It was observed by the Adjudicating Authority that the appellant did not cooperate with the department. The Adjudicating Authority has decided the case ex-parte and confirmed the demand only on the basis of the figures provide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o prove with the support of documentary evidences that the consideration received by him is exempted from service tax. Hence, I am of the view that the appellant is liable for payment of service tax without any benefit of exemption against the consideration received by her. 5.6 Now coming to the issue of threshold exemption, I note that the appellant has submitted that otherwise she is entitled for threshold exemption in view of Notification No. 33/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 as there receipts are below Rs.10 lakhs during the preceding financial year. In support she has submitted the copy of Balance Sheet and I'TR for the relevant period. However, I find that the appellant has not followed the prescribed route of law under Finance Act, 1994 and rules made thereunder thereby not applying for registration while value of services provided by her during the year 2016-17 reached at prescribed limits. Further the conditions attached with threshold exemption notification are not verifiable at this stage. Accordingly, I am not inclined to provide any such benefit to the appellant. 6.0 In view of foregoing, I reject the appeal filed by the appellant and hold the impugned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny merit in the approach adopted by the lower authorities. 4.7 I also observe that the show cause notice has been issued invoking the extended period of limitation which in the present case was not called far. Demand should also fall on the ground of limitation. 4.8 In alternate, appellant has submitted that her turnover during the financial year was below the threshold exemption limit as her turnover was below Rs.10 lakhs in the previous year. She produced relevant documents for the same. On perusal of the documents I observe that the claim made by the appellant is justified and the impugned order also rejects the same on a flimsy ground that appellant has not followed the due procedure. I do not find any merits in the same. 4.9 Accordingly, I do not find any merits in the impugned order and the same is set aside. 4.10 In view of the above, as I do not find any merits in the demand made, I also do not find any merits in the penalties imposed upon the appellant. 5.1 Appeal is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) ============= Document 1 29 Dated 10.06.2021 To. The Superintendent CGST & Central Excise, Fange South, Division-Varanasi Varana....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tter C.No. C.No.IV(18)R-South/Nidhi/16- 17/579/2021/745 dated 19.05.2021 were duly complied by the assessce vide his reply dated 10.06.2021 which was duly handed over in the office of the Superintendent. A photo copy of the reply dated 10,06.2021 is enclosed for reference(Annexure-2). 3. That as stated in para 3.1 of SCN It is incorrect to say that the assessee has not filed any details called for by the Range Superintendent. The assessee filed form 26AS and P & L account and 34 Balance Sheet for the year Under consideration and claims dlaat the business receipts were exempt as enlisted at serial No. 1% of the vide mega exempel notification No.25/2012-Service Tax date 20.06.2012 but the same has not been rebutted in co. Cause Notice (SCN). Hence the SCN is defective and is not well founded in law. 4. That the Noticee had a proper license from appropriate Joy,thority to run canteen , a copy of which is enclosed herewith for your kind perusal in suprow of source of receipts declared in ncome tax return during the year under consideration 5. That the Show Cause Notice is beyond jurisdiction. The Noticee relies on a decision of the Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide mega exemption notification No.25/2012-Service Tax dos- a0.06.2012, hence there was no intention to evade tax. Therefore, proposed penalty 14 99 of Finance Act cannot be confirmed by extending period U/s 80 of Finance Act 1994 It is also submitted before your goodself that Penalties under Section 77(1)(a) and 77(1)(c) of he Finance Act 1994 are also not attracted due non-liability of service upon the assessee. "Where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been show levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, by reason of 9. Section 78 of the Finance Act reads as under: (a) fraud; or (b) collusion; or (c) willful mis-statement; or (d) suppression of facts; or (e) contravention of any of the provisions of this Chapter or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of service tax, the person, liable to pay such service tax or erroneous refund, as determined under sub-section (2) of section 73, shall also be liable to pay a penalty, in addition to such service tax and interest thereon, if any, payable by him, which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed twice, the amount of service tax so not levied or paid or short-levied or shor....