CCE Vs. SMT. SONA SHARMA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the appeals are arising out of a common order and therefore, all are being taken up together for disposal.

(2.) THE relevant facts, in brief, are that the Respondents are providing rent -a -cab services to their client, M/s. Surya Roshni Ltd., Malanpur. During the scrutiny of the records, it came to the knowledge of the central excise officers that the Respondents were providing rent -a -cab services to their client. By letter dated 11.1.2005 and 23.3.2005, the Superintendent of Central Excise directed the Respondents to obtain registration, file service tax returns and pay the appropriate service tax on the amount received by them from M/s. Surya Roshni Ltd. But no reply was received. Show cause notices all dated 17.4.2006 were issued proposing demand of tax, penalties and interest. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed demand of tax and imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/ - under Section 77 of the Act along with interest. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalties under Section 78 of the Act on all the Respondents. Hence, the Revenue filed these appeals.

(3.) LD . DR on behalf of the Revenue submits that by letters dated 11.1.2005 and 23.3.2005, the Respondents were directed to deposit the tax for the period 1.10.2000 to 31.3.2004. But no communication was made by them. He further submits that the Respondents did not submit any reply and attend the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority. It transpires that the Respondents deliberately failed to pay the tax. He also submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not examined the conduct of the Respondents for avoiding the payment of tax.