Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai Versus M\/s Gufic Pvt. Ltd.
Service Tax
2018 (10) TMI 1075 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 18-9-2018
Appeal No. ST\/86440\/2018 – A\/87421\/2018
Service Tax
DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
\nShri M.P. Damle, AC (AR) for Appellant
\nShri Sumit Jhunjhunwala, C.A. for Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: Dr. D.M. Misra
\nHeard both sides.
\n2. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Original No. MUM\/CGST-MW\/COMMR\/18\/2017-18 dated 07.12.2017 passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai.
\n2. The learned AR for the Revenue has submitted that while confirming and appropriating the demand of Service Tax of Rs. 41,61,205\/- for the period January, 2013 to March, 2013, the learned Commissioner imposed penalty under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 erroneously observing that Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He submits that even though the demand <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n gnizance of the fact that the respondent had approached the VCES Scheme for the earlier period, adjudicated the liability for subsequent period for which show-cause notice was issued within normal period. Accordingly, imposed penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. It is his contention that there is no error in the findings of the learned Commissioner imposing penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n of Section 76 of Act and attract provisions of Section 78. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai Versus M\/s Gufic Pvt. Ltd.Service Tax2018 (10) TMI 1075 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 18-9-2018Appeal No. ST\/86440\/2018 – A\/87421\/2018Service TaxDR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri M.P. Damle, AC (AR) for Appellant Shri Sumit Jhunjhunwala, C.A. for Respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra Heard both sides. … Continue reading “Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai Versus M\/s Gufic Pvt. Ltd.”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14566","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14566","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14566"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14566\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14566"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14566"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14566"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. I find that there is no dispute about the liability of Service Tax of Rs. 41,61,205\/- pertaining to the period January, 2013 to March, 2013 which has been confirmed by the Commissioner in the impugned order. Also it is not in dispute that the entire amount of Service Tax along with interest of Rs. 2,13,191\/- had been discharged by the respondent. While imposing penalty under section 76 and not under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, the learned Commissioner recorded his findings at para 38 as follows:-
\n“38.1. The noticee had paid the entire extent of Service Ta<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n38.3 Proviso to Section 73 (1) is applicable only if there is willful suppression of facts with an intention to evade payment of duty\/ tax. While for the period from October 2007 to December 2012 the noticee has availed VCES, for the period post VCES, i.e. January to March 2013, the noticee had paid the dues for the said period vide the challan dated 14.08.2013 i.e. before the issue of SCN. However, the ST3 for the relevant period i.e. January to March 2013, was filed only on 27th of March 2015 i.e. well after the issue of SCN. Hence in this context, it can be said that for a particular period of time there loomed large a cloud of doubt as to the existence of an intention of suppression of facts on the part of the assessee as neither was the duty paid nor was the ST3 Return filed, all within the due date. But from the submissions made it is apparent that the said tax so left unpaid was made good by the assessee even before any<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n