9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat above facts came to the notice of the Department only during scrutiny of records e.g. ledger, balance sheet, invoices, cenvat credit accounts etc., maintained by the respondent and such details were not disclosed to the department at any stage in any report or returns and thus, the respondent had suppressed the facts and the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was applicable to the instant case. SCN itself shows that every details was maintained by the respondent in their usual course of years. They had not suppressed or manipulated any fact to evade the payment of service tax or to avail Cenvat credit. When the ingredients of proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Act were not present, the invocation of extended period of li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng various images and text material by way of retrieval from the web site of foreign companies viz. M/s Reuters, ATPN under the proper agreements. Those images/text materials were used by Zee News Ltd. in their rendering On Line information and Data Based Access or retrieval service for receiving such material from the said foreign based companies. For the Financial Years 2007-2008 to 2010-2011 amount of ₹ 1,15,39,998/-, ₹ 9065790/-, ₹ 9442120/- and ₹ 9751333/- was paid by them in each Financial Year respectively which attracted service tax amounting to ₹ 45,23,799/-, but same had not been paid under reverse charge mechanism under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x short paid during the Financial Years 2007-08 to 2010-11 should not be demanded and recovered along with interest and penalty and why Cenvat credit of ₹ 6,67,92,233/- wrongly availed should not be demanded and recovered alongwith interest and penalty. 7. The respondent besides contesting the SCN on merit took the objection that the SCN was barred by limitation as extended period of time was not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. As per Section 73 of the Act, in normal case, SCN can be issued at any time within eighteen months from the relevant date. Therefore, proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act provides that SCN can be issued at any time within 5 years from the relevant date, if duty was not paid or levied by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of the merger, when the copy of the order was filed with the Registrar of Companies was on 29.03.2010. It was submitted that the stand of the Department that only during the scrutiny of records and returns of the respondent they could come to know about these facts and they were not aware of the demerger, could not be believed when there was High Court order regarding demerger. 10. The respondent had been receiving video images and audio etc. from ATPN and Reuters Ltd. since 2007 onwards. It was part of usual business practice of the respondent. Therefore, It was not correct to say that Department was not aware of the fact that the respondent had entered into agreement with ATPN and Reuters Ltd for receiving video and audio etc. The c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hs from the closure of financial year. 14. Aggrieved by the aforesaid adjudication of the SCN of the Commissioner (Excise), the respondent filed Appeal No.ST/53480/2014-CU(DB) with Stay Application No.ST/Stay/53891/2014. The Tribunal vide final order held that there was no element of suppression, concealment or any action or inaction on the part of the respondent to evade payment of duty nor any collision etc., existed so as to attract the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. 15. The Tribunal held that the SCN was bad for invoking the extended period of limitation. Revenue had got all the information from the records maintained by the respondent in the ordinary course of their business w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
