9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvantage of time-bar. The fact that Delhi data was supplied without delay further supports the view that delay in providing information about outside-Delhi centres was not intentional to evade service tax. However, for invoking the extended period what is required to be established is that there was wilful mis-statement/suppression of facts. - allegation of wilful suppression of facts is not sustainable. Similar view was also been held by CESTAT in the case of Gargi Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2013 (5) TMI 695 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. As a consequence, the demand of ₹ 71,50,372/- is hit by time bar and hence the same is not sustainable Regarding demand for normal period - Held that:- Even after the demand was confirmed and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Service on the ground of denial of Exemption Notification No.24/2004-ST, dated 10.09.2004 10.09.2004 to 09.03.2005 SCN dated 25.04.2006 33,39,829.00 2. 10.09.2004 to 09.03.2005 SCN dated 24.08.2007 71,50,372.00 2. The appellant has contended that the issue of liability to tax under Commercial Training or Coaching Service on the service rendered by a computer institute is no longer res integra and decided against the appellant by the Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs. Sunwin Technosolution P. Ltd. [2011 (21) STR 97 (SC)]. However, ld. advocate stated that Notification No.9/2003-ST, dated 20.06.2003 exempted the serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 72/- totally time-barred. He stated that it is also eligible for the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act. 3. Ld. Departmental Representative strenuously argued that there was suppression of facts and the appellant did not mention the value of the exempted service and exemption Notification in the ST-3 returns. It also did not provide the information timely when asked in spite of protracted correspondence and in respect of demand of ₹ 71,50,372/- it provided the information after more than two years from the date it was sought. In response, ld. advocate for the appellant stated that during the relevant period, there was no provision to mention the value of exempted service and exemption Notification in the ST-3 returns and that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot unreasonable or hallucinatory. In these circumstances, the contention of the appellant that it was actually under a bona fide belief that the impugned service tax was exempted during the period prior to the insertion of the proviso in Notification No.24/2004-ST vide Notification No.19/2005-ST, with effect from 16.06.2005 cannot be discarded as baseless or untenable. The contention that it did not mention the value of exempted service and the exemption Notification numbers in the ST-3 returns is not valid because during the relevant time, the ST-3 return did not have the provision for mentioning such details. Ld. Departmental Representative also contended that information regarding rendition of service relating to its centres outside Delh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tedly held by the judicial pronouncements that mere not telling is not tantamounting to suppression. As stated earlier, the appellant had good ground to have a reasonable belief that it was not liable to service tax prior to 16.06.2005. Thus, having regard to the overall circumstances, we are of the view that the allegation of wilful suppression of facts is not sustainable. Similar view was also been held by CESTAT in the case of Gargi Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2013 (32) str 654 (Tri.-Del.)]. As a consequence, the demand of ₹ 71,50,372/- is hit by time bar and hence the same is not sustainable. Therefore, penalty related to the above demand is also not sustainable. 5. As regards demand of ₹ 33,38,829/-, we find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
