9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the intention to evade payment of tax - this issue was also not considered. The Appellant should be given a chance to prove their case on ground of revenue neutrality and time bar - appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/250/12 - A/89358/17/STB - Dated:- 28-8-2017 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri.L Badrinarayan, Advocate for appellant Shri.Roopam Kapoor, Comm. (AR), for respondent ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair 1. The appellants are engaged in the transportation of goods and passenger by Air having their Head office located at Mumbai. They are also availing credit of duty paid on inputs, capital goods as well as Input Services. 2. During the year December 2006 to May 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are paying huge taxes in cash and if they would have paid the tax amount so demanded, the payment from cash would have reduced to such extent. The appellant also enclosed month wise service tax liability paid in cash to support their claim. He also submits that the demand is barred by limitation as there was no intention to evade taxes. The entire exercise being revenue neutral there could not have been intention to evade. That section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 came into force w.e.f 18.04.2006. During this period the levy of service tax under Section 66A was subject to outcome of litigation as the constitutional validity of the same was under challenge in the case of Indian National Ship owners Association Vs. UOI - 13 (STR) 235 Bom. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce with the department. Thus the plea of bonafide belief is not sustainable. The Appellant has not paid interest or penalty till date. The information sought was belatedly given. That no case of bonafide belief is made out. He relies upon the orders of Tribunal in case of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board - 1984 (6) LET 576 and M/s Interscape as reported in 2006 (198) ELT 275 (TRI). That there is no provision for waiver of interest in the statute where service tax liability is confirmed. That as far as revenue neutrality is concerned the period is December 06 to September 09. That in case of Appellant the service tax was payable on International travel from September 2006 and all passenger services became taxable only w.e.f 2010. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it has to be seen whether the demand against Appellant can be raised by invoking extended period of limitation. We find that the adjudicating authority has invoked the extended period of limitation for demanding service tax from the appellant by holding that they had suppressed vital information with the intention to evade payment of tax. Apparently, the aspect of revenue neutrality and time bar was not considered. We are of the view that the Appellant should be given a chance to prove their case on ground of revenue neutrality and time bar. As the demand would depend on fresh decision on the limitation issue, the question whether any penalty is imposable on the party and, if so, to what extent also have to be determined afresh by the adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
