M/S G.M.T.D., Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs Cce, Lucknow
- CitationAppeal No. ST/429/2009-CU(DB)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The adjudicating authority's finding that the appellant suppressed facts is sustainable where the figures of service tax payable were furnished only after considerable delay and repeated reminders, and the ST-3 returns for the period from October 2000 onwards were filed only after an inordinate lapse; on such facts, short payment of service tax evidenced by the comparison of tax payable against tax deposited, as shown in the records, is established and the lower authorities were right to hold the assessee guilty of suppression.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 32-ST/LKO/2009 dated 24.2.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CCE & ST, Lucknow)
For Approval & Signature :
Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
M/s G.M.T.D., Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Lucknow Respondent
Appearance:
None - for the Appellant
Shri B.B. Sharma, D.R. - for the Respondent
Coram : Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)
F. Order No. 52313/2015
Per R.K. Singh :
Appeal has been filed against order-in-appeal dated 24.2.2009 which upheld the order-in-original dated 28.2.2008 in terms of which service tax demand of Rs.26,81,496/- along with interest and penalties was confirmed on the ground that the appellant short paid service tax on telecom services, did not provide details timely in spite of being repeatedly asked, submitted their ST-3 returns after inordinate delay and suppressed the actual receipts.
2. When the matter was called today nobody was present to represent the appellant. There is no request for adjournment either. Even on the earlier occasion when the case was listed there was nobody present on behalf of the appellant.
3. We have perused the case records. We find that the adjudicating authority has analysed the facts of the case and arrived at the amount of short payment based on figures collected during audit of the appellant. It is also recorded that the figures were submitted after a considerable delay and after repeated reminders and the ST-3 returns for the period October, 2000 onwards were submitted only on 19.7.2002. Based on these facts, the lower adjudicating authorities have rightly held the appellant guilty of suppression of facts. The period involved is October 2000 to March 2002 and as per the records of service tax payable and the service tax deposited vide TR-6 challans as mentioned in the table given in the impugned primary order, short payment of service tax of Rs. 26,81,496/- is clearly evident. We find that even during the proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals) in spite of several dates fixed for personal hearing, nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant.
4. In the light of the foregoing, we do not find any ground for appellate intervention in the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.
(Justice G. Raghuram)
President
(R.K. Singh)
Member (Technical)
RM
1
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free