M/s. SVV Transports Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Trichy
Service Tax
2019 (3) TMI 119 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 28-2-2019
Appeal No. ST/599/2012 – Final Order No. 40393/2019
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Ms. Amrutha Arvind, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in providing the services of Site Formation and Clearance, Excavation and Earthmoving and Demolition Services. On scrutiny of records, it was noticed that they provided such services to M/s. Madras Cements Ltd. and received an amount of Rs. 16,93,372/- as service tax from October 2009 to January 2010 but did not pay the amount to the Central Government. On such allegation, show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing to demand service tax along with interest and also for imposin
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
est before issuance of show cause notice as pointed out by officers. To support this argument, she took assistance of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd. – 2012 (26) STR 3 (Kar.). It was also submitted by her that apart from mere allegation that there is suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of service tax, department has not been able to point out any positive act on the part of the appellant indulging in suppression of facts. There was no intention to evade payment of service tax which is very much clear since the appellant has discharged the service tax along with interest immediately and also had filed periodical returns. She therefore prayed that the penalty imposed under section 78 may be set aside.
3. The ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan supported the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that this is a case where the appellant has collected the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
n particular no show cause notice has to be issued. The intent of this section is to reduce litigation and also to encourage the appellant to pay up the tax as and when pointed out by the department or coming to notice of the assessee. Thus, it is only intended for voluntary and easy compliance on the part of the assessee. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd. (supra) has held that when the assessee has paid up the demand of service tax along with interest no show cause notice and in particular no penalty can be imposed. The ld. AR has been at pains to argue that the appellant has not discharged the service tax even though collected by them and therefore it is implied that they have an intention to evade payment of service tax. It is submitted by ld. counsel that they had filed the returns within the due date and due to financial hardship they could not deposit within tim
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =