9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 342 - AT - Service TaxImposition of penalties - business auxiliary services - whether period of limitation can be invoked in the cases where section 80 has been invoked? - Held that - Tribunal in its number of cases observed that where the penalty under Section 80 of the Act has not been imposed by extending the bona fide belief on the part of the appellant, the extended period would not be invokable in as much as the same ingredients are required for invocation of extended period of limitation. Such references can be made in the case of Sankhla Udyog Vs. CCEST, Jaipur 2014 (12) TMI 614 - CESTAT NEW DELHI as also to the decision in the case of BSNL Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad 2008 (12) TMI 87 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD . The appellant is a public sector under taking, being a State Govt. enterprise, in such a case allegation of wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts or deliberate contravention of Rule with an intention to evade the duty payment cannot be made. Tribunal has observed the same in the case of CCE, Allahabad Vs. Bharat Yantra Nigam Ltd. 2014 (7) TMI 370 - CESTAT NEW DELHI . The extended period is not available to the Revenue. However, a part of the demand falls within the limited period, which would be re-quantified by the adjudicating authority - appeal disposed off - decided partly against Revenue.
Issues involved:
1. Demand raised under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) for the period October 2004 to March 2009. 2. Assailing the impugned order on the basis of limitation. 3. Invocation of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 for dropping the penalty. 4. Applicability of extended period of limitation. 5. Consideration of bonafide belief and waiver of penalty under Section 80. 6. Public sector undertaking status affecting allegations of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. 7. Decision on the availability of the extended period to the Revenue. Analysis: 1. The judgment concerns a demand raised under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) for a specific period. The appellant challenges the order primarily on the grounds of limitation, emphasizing the dropping of penalty invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The invocation of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 is pivotal in this case as it led to the dropping of the penalty. The appellant argues that due to the non-imposition of penalty under this section, the extended period of limitation should not apply, citing precedents to support this contention. 3. The Tribunal's analysis of past cases highlights that when penalty under Section 80 is not imposed, it affects the invocability of the extended period of limitation. This principle is supported by references to relevant judgments such as Sankhla Udyog Vs. CCEST, Jaipur and BSNL Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad. 4. The status of the appellant as a public sector undertaking is crucial in determining the applicability of allegations such as wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. The Tribunal's observation in the case of CCE, Allahabad Vs. Bharat Yantra Nigam Ltd. emphasizes the impact of this status on such allegations. 5. Ultimately, the Tribunal rules that the extended period is not available to the Revenue due to the circumstances of the case, including the appellant's status and the waiver of penalty under Section 80. However, a portion of the demand falls within the limited period, necessitating re-quantification by the adjudicating authority. 6. In conclusion, the appeal is disposed of based on the considerations of limitation, penalty waiver under Section 80, and the impact of the appellant's status as a public sector undertaking on the allegations made.
|
