COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. LAXMI COLOUR LAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVENUE is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the demand confirmed against the respondent by invoking extended period of limitation and consequently the penalties imposed under Sections 76, 77 and 78 are dropped. Brief facts of the case are that during the period 2006 -07 and 2008 -09 the respondent was providing photography services. On an enquiry it was found that the respondent collected the service tax from the customers but did not deposit the same with the Government treasury and it is also found that they have not filed the service tax returns regularly. Therefore, an investigation was conducted on 13 -12 -2008 and statement of the proprietor of the respondent was recorded wherein he has admitted that they are collecting the service tax but not paying the same with the department due to some financial crisis. Thereafter, the respondent paid the service tax through their Cenvat credit account but did not pay the interest and also filed service tax returns. In the circumstance, a case has been booked against the respondent for demanding the payment of service tax which has been evaded along with interest and various penalties were also proposed under the Finance Act, 1994. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand along with interest and the various penalties. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand which has been confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation and also dropped the penalties imposed on the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is before me.

(2.) HEARD both sides.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that there is no suppression of facts from their side as they were maintaining the Books of Accounts and were having all the records of collection of service tax and the same have been reflected in their balance sheet also. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly recorded that if there was any intention to suppress the facts of collection of service tax, in that situation, they have not shown the details of service tax collected in their Books of Accounts hence, suppression of facts is not tenable. The learned Advocate prays that the impugned order is to be upheld.