9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her, the only ground on which the Commissioner (A) has invoked the extended period is that the appellants have not disclosed the said fact in their return and thereby suppress the material facts. The penalty is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/20627/2018-SM - Final Order No. 21637/2018 - Dated:- 17-10-2018 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. V.B. Gaikwad, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. K.B. Nanaiah, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 27.11.2016 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the provisions of the Act and the rules and without considering the decisions rendered by various Courts on this issue. He further submitted that during the initial period of introduction of reverse charge mechanism, there was no clarity about the scope of the manpower supply service and they were under the belief that the contractors appointed by them are basically doing the various jobs in relation to manufacturing of their final products by utilizing their own manpower and hence will not be treatable as manpower supply service providers and hence the omission on their par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ST-3 returns and have not paid the tax, therefore, they are guilty of suppression of facts with malafide intention to evade payment of tax. He further submitted that mere omission to disclose or mere non-payment of tax not treatable as suppression of facts and extended period cannot be invoked. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: (i) Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2013 (288) ELT-161 (SC). (ii) Bharat Hotels Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2018 (12) GSTL-368 (Del.). (iii) Bordubi Engneering Works Vs. UOI, 2016 (42) STR-803 (Gau.). (iv) Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2016 (42) STR-634 (Cal.). (v) Roma Henny Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2018 (8) GSTL-239 (Del.). (vi) K.T. Muruk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e SCN. Further, I find that the manpower supply service is covered under the definition of input service and the input credit is available to the appellant and thereby making the whole transaction as revenue neutral. In view of the various decisions cited supra, no malafide intention can be inferred if the transaction is revenue neutral and extended period can also not be invoked. Further, I find that the impugned period of dispute is from July 2012 to September 2013 whereas the SCN was issued on 08.12.2016 which is beyond the normal period of one year. Further, I find that the only ground on which the Commissioner (A) has invoked the extended period is that the appellants have not disclosed the said fact in their return and thereby suppres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
