9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and finishing service would not be entitled to abatement of 67% under Notification No.15/20045-ST. Disallowing such abatement and allowing exemption upto the value of 4 lakhs, Service tax liability of ₹ 36,233/- on taxable value of Rs,.3,55,229/- would arise. As regards the issue of wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, we find that the only ground to sustain this allegation is that the respondent did not file ST-3 returns nor registered with the Service Tax department. However the Commissioner (Appeals) held that no service tax was liable. In the case of Continental Foundation Jt.Venture vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I- [2007 (8) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], the Supreme Court has in effect held that mere omission to give c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estle and therefore the same was not liable to tax under Industrial Construction Service. Similarly, ₹ 5,71,646/- pertained to painting of goods/material/other article other than building and civil structures. This activity was not covered under the category of Industrial Construction Service. As regards the remaining amount, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the benefit of abatement of 67% under Notification NO.15/2004-ST and the remaining 33% was within ambit of exemption limit. 2. Revenue has contended that painting of residential property of Nestle which is a commercial concern should be covered under the category of industrial construction service. It also states that 67% abatement under Notification No.15/2004-ST was not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner (Appeals) held that no service tax was liable. In the case of Continental Foundation Jt.Venture vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I-2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC), the Supreme Court has in effect held that mere omission to give correct information is not suppression of facts unless it was deliberate to stop the payment of duty - Suppression means failure to disclose full information with intent to evade payment of duty - An incorrect statement cannot be equated with a wilful mis-statement - There cannot be suppression or mis-statement of fact, which is not wilful and yet constitute a permissible ground for purpose of proviso to Section 11A ibid - Mis-statement of fact must be wilful. In view of the said observation of Supreme Court and even th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
