9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1031X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal authority confirmed the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 27,58,113/- along with interest and penalties by taking the view that the respondent had failed to pay appropriate service tax for the period October 1999 to September 2004. The respondent challenged the order of the original authority before the Commissioner(Appeals) who passed the impugned order in which he restricted the demand of service tax to that falling within the normla period of one year and appropriated the service tax to that extent from the tax alread paid by the respondent. The Revenue has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds:- i. The Commissioner(Appeals) has taken the view that the Department had already issued 5 show-cause no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds of appeal. He argued that the respondent has failed to file mandatory ST3 returns during the relevant period and hence the Department was not aware of the extent of service rendered by the respondent. The earlier show-cause notices were issued only to penalize the respondent for non-filing of ST3 returns. After the full details of service provided, were made available to the Department on 24/01/2005, the show-cause notice has been issued on 21/04/2005. Hence the show-cause notice is within time. He further submitted that the respondent's failure to submit full details of the services rendered by way of statutory returns, is to be considered as suppression and the Department was within its right to invok ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rlaps with the period covered under the show-cause notice dt. 21/04/2005, the Department had issued 5 show-cause notices. He has accepted the plea of the respondent that the Department was in full knowledge of their activity and circumstances and non-payment of service tax. Finally, he has cited the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory (supra) to support the legal position that extended period is not available to the Department when the Department has the knowledge. Accordingly, he set aside the liability for the period beyond the normal period of one year. 7. After perusing the records of the case including the copy of the appeal which was before the learned Commissioner(Appeals) at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
