DIXIT SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION PVT.LTD. Vs. CST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the Appellants were providing the taxable 'Security Services' and other services having registration No. SCA/AHD -1/819 dt.18.11.99 (PAN based registration No. AABCD6185QST001). It was noticed that the value of service provided by the Appellants shown in ST -3 returns was less than shown in Profit & Loss Account and therefore, a letter was issued to them on 10.3.06 requesting them to produce a copy of balance sheet with Profit & Loss Account for the year 2004 -2005 and later on requested to submit the bifurcated figures. The Appellants submitted the copies of balance sheet for the year 2004 -2005 and also produced the bifurcated figures along with the certificate from a Chartered Accountant. On verification of the same, it was observed that there was a difference in value as compared withy ST -3 returns filed with the department and therefore there was short payment of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 1,05,494/ - for the period April 2004 to March 2005. The Appellants vide their letter dt.30.11.2006, informed that they had paid the amo0unt of Service Tax along with interest vide TR -6 challan dt.23.11.2006.

(2.) THEREAFTER , a show cause notice was issued to the Appellant and after adjudication and appellate proceedings, penalty of Rs. 1,05,494/ - has been imposed under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 and penalty of Rs. 2,000/ - has been imposed under Section 77 of Finance Act, 1994.

(3.) LEARNED SDR, on the other hand, submits that on finding discrepancy between Profit & Loss Account and ST -3 return, a letter was written by the department to the Appellant calling for documents. He submits that the Profit & Loss Account and balance sheet was called for to obtain authenticated copy of balance sheet and Profit & Loss Account. He submits that the Appellant deliberately suppressed the value of Service Tax with intention to evade Service Tax and therefore, the penalty has been rightly imposed. Further, he submits that the submission relating to reimbursement cannot be taken into account in the absence of an order by the Tribunal allowing submission of additional evidence.