9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has observed that a mere inaction or failure on the part a manufacturer is not sufficient to invoke the larger limitation of five years and the same would be applicable only when something positive indicating that the manufacturer had the reasonable belief that he has to give the particular information. In the present case, there is no evidence of any malafide on the part of the assesse. Also, the said issue was the subject matter of litigation with the Revenue pending at various levels and all the Air Travel Agents were fighting the case with the department on the taxability. As such, it cannot be held that the present appellant was guilty of any suppression or mis-statement etc., so as to invoke the larger per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al 'Computer Reservation Systems (CRS) software supplied by M/s. ABACUS/Ms. Amedeus. During audit of the appellant's premises, it was noticed that apart from their regular business the appellants had earned income by way of 'incentive' from M/s. Amedeus and M/s. ABACUS for the period 24.07.2003 to 05.11.2005 and 11.11.2006 to 25.01.2008 respectively for use of software in their business. As it appeared that the appellant had not discharged the service tax liability on the above said incentive received, they were issued with the SCN demanding service tax liability of ₹ 4,54,459/- along with interest on the above said income, for the period July 2003 to January 2008 in terms of proviso to Section 73 (1) and Section 75 of the Finance Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d period is not justified. 4. The Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the lower authorities and submits that the fact of use of the software of the said CRS supplied companies was never brought to the notice of the Revenue and as such the extended period was available and has been rightly invoked. 5.1 On going through the impugned order, we note that the lower authorities have observed that as the assessees have not paid the tax amount as demanded by the Revenue, the same would amount to suppression. However, we are not in agreement with the above observation of the lower authorities. A mere non-disclosure of the fact cannot make a guilty mind of the assessees so as to justifiably invoking the longer period. The Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
