9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o evade payment of Service Tax. Since, the intention to evade payment of Service Tax could not be established through the said show cause notice, the said proviso was not invokable. As a result, the entire demand has became bad in Law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. ST/56021/2014-CU[DB] - Final Order No. 71033/2016 - Dated:- 3-11-2016 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Amitosh Moitra, CA for the Appellant Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Department ORDER Per Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is preferred against Order-in-Appeal No.NOI/EXCUS/000/APPL/147-148/14-15 dated 29.08.2014 passed by Commissioner (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal No.39/Addl. Commissioner/Noida/2013-14 dated 27.12.2013. Before the Original Authority, the appellant contended that the demand in respect of Service Tax is hit by limitation, since, the show cause notice could not establish that there was any suppression on the part of appellant or there was any intention to evade payment of Service Tax. They had also submitted before the Original Authority that their accounts were audited by Revenue on 13-14th October, 2008 and again on 06.10.2009 and further subsequently, on 04th January, 2010 and therefore, allegation of suppression was claimed to be baseless. The Original Authority did not appreciate the said arguments and confirmed the demand and imposed equal penalty. 3. The appellant preferr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services were performed in India and therefore, the recipient of the services was not liable to pay Service Tax. 5. Heard the Ld. DR, who has supported the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 6. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that entire demand in the show-cause-notice is raised by invoking proviso to Sub-Section 1 of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The requirement under said proviso is that suppression or misstatement etc. is to be established separately and intention to evade Service Tax is to established separately for invoking said proviso. The appellant are service receiver and they are entitled for credit of Service Tax paid as service receivers, and as a result, it could not be established by Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
