9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. After hearing both the sides, duly represented by Shri Abhinav Kalra Chartered Accountant and Shri Rajeev Ranjan Additional Commissioner, we find that the appellants were providing services from different locations which included two different types; one related to renting of the premises as unit floor renting and said service was being considered by them as falling under „Business Support Services‟ and service tax was being paid by them accordingly. The second part of the services being provided by them related to the providing of furniture and other infrastructure facilities included Wi-Fi facilities etc. No service tax liability was being discharged by them on the said activity. 3. With effect from 01/06/2007, a separate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... about the factual position that all the three appellants starting discharging their service tax liability under the category of "Renting of Immovable Property", with effect from 01/06/2007, after getting themselves registered with the department. No objection was ever raised by the Revenue at the time of registration or at any time thereafter. The relevant paragraph from the show cause notice admitting the said position is reproduced below:- "Renting of Immovable Property" was brought within the ambit of service tax w.e.f. 01/06/2007. Thereafter, these aforesaid three group companies of Logix group viz. "M/s ITPEL," "M/s LSTPL" and "M/s AVFPL" started to pay service tax under the head of „Renting of Immovable Property‟ w.e.f. 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n with intent to evade payment of tax. It was not mere failure or omission on their part; rather act on of part of party is deliberate, resulted in loss to the exchequer. All this has clearly leads that the suppression and contravention of provisions is with deliberate intent not to pay service tax on gross amount for services charged from consumer of „Infrastructural Support Services‟ or in harsher words to evade payment of Service Tax. Hence, I find that for intentional short payment/non-payment of service tax they are liable to penal action under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 as proposed in notice to show cause." 8. As is seen from the above, the Adjudicating Authority has justified invocation of extended period by observi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of suppression and mis-statement on the assessee. In fact, we are of the view that it is failure of the Revenue itself which they are trying to cover by attributing mala fide to the assessee. As per the settled law, extended period is invocable only when there are positive evidences of any suppression or mis-statement, with intent to evade payment of duty. In the absence of the same, the demands raised beyond the normal period are liable to be stuck down as barred by limitation. Inasmuch as the entire facts were known to the Revenue, we find no justification for invoking the extended period and inasmuch as the entire demand is beyond the normal period of limitation, we are of the view that impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
