9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that they were promoting the business of the latter and in such a situation how there could be any bonafide belief that the services are not in the nature of Business Auxiliary Service - demand upheld. Penalty - Held that:- There was some interpretational confusion that prevailed in respect of the taxability of the impugned services - the penalties imposed under sections 76 and 78 are set aside by invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act. The demand of service tax along with interest thereon and the penalty imposed under section 77 upheld - appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. ST/442/2011 - Final Order No. 42031 / 2018 - Dated:- 18-7-2018 - Hon ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Mem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d case on limitation, since there was no intention whatsoever to evade payment of service tax. The service tax liability was not discharged only because they were under the belief that the impugned services were not taxable. Ld. Counsel refers to the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Bharat Hotels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2018 (12) GSTL 368 (Del.) wherein it has been held that where there is a bonafide belief, extended period of limitation is not invocable. 3. On the other hand, ld. AR Shri K.P. Muralidharan supported the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and gone through the facts. 5. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the lower appellate authority, while upholdin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on that they were promoting the business of the latter and in such a situation how there could be any bonafide belief that the services are not in the nature of Business Auxiliary Service. Viewed in this light, we find that the facts of the appeal before us are quite distinct from those in Bharat Hotels (supra) wherein the Hon ble High Court of Delhi has found that the appellant was under bonafide belief that they were not liable for payment of service tax. In the event, we are of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the lower appellate authority confirming the invocation of extended period. 6. At the same time, it has to be kept in mind that there was some interpretational confusion that prevailed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
