9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d period of limitation. 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 limitation was not correct to issue SCN. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Central Excise Appeal No. 81 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 18-7-2018 - Hon'ble Bharati Sapru And Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi,Atul Gupta ORDER 1. This Central Excise Appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been preferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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'). 4. It was further said that the scheme of demerger under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 between Zee News Ltd. And Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited and their respective shareholders and creditors was sanctioned by the Bombay High Court and was filed with Registrar of the Companies. Pursuant to the said scheme, Regional General Entertainment channels viz. Zee Bangl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 reason of fraud or collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or Rules with intent to evade payment of such duty. Thus, the extended period of limitation would be available only if any of the ingredients of proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act were attracted and not otherwise. 8. In the present case the period covered b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 copies of the agreements with ATPN and Reuters Limited for the period 2007-08 to 2010-11 were produced alongwith the reply to SCN. 11. It was also submitted that in any case, the respondent had been regularly filing its returns with the Department. Alongwith the ST-3 returns, the respondent was also filing Cenvat details. The said returns contained all the details relating to the Cenvat c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 which was clear from the SCN itself and there was not even a single instance of any manipulation or suppression and/or misinformation which could be pointed out in the SCN except for bald allegation. Thus, Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner(Excise). The Tribunal did not enter into the merit of the case. 16. Heard Sri B.K. Raghuvanshi, learned co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
