9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers extension of period upto five years and demand notice issued on 13.06.2001 is well within the proviso to Section 73 of the Act cannot be accepted on the facts of the present case - On perusal of SCN, it is seen that there is no allegation with regard to fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, suppression of fact nor contravention of any provisions or rules to evade payment of service tax - The ingredients of Section 73 of the Act are conspicuously absent in the SCN. Appeal dismissed. - CEA. NO. 59 OF 2017 - - - Dated:- 4-10-2018 - MR. DINESH MAHESHWARI, AND MR. S.G. PANDIT JJ. APPELLANT: (BY SRI. ARAVIND. K. V., ADVOCATE) ORDER S.G. PANDIT J., The revenue is in appeal, challenging the final order No.20240/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r reply that demand is barred by time and they are not liable to pay service tax any further. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise who had issued show-cause notice by his order dated 29.12.2003 confirmed the demand of ₹ 1,28,98,156/- being the balance service tax payable by the respondent and confirmed the interest at the applicable rate on the said amount. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, the respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Authority ) in Appeal No.23/2004. The Appellate Authority by its order dated 14.07.2004 allowed the appeal. While allowing the appeal, the Appellate Authority re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice Tax demand is for the period from 16.07.1997 to 31.03.1998 against the respondent. Admittedly, show-cause notice is issued on 13.06.2001. Section 73 of the Act stipulates that where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid, the demand could be made within eighteen months from the relevant date. In the case on hand, as stated above, the service tax is demanded for the period ending 31.03.1998 whereas show-cause notice is issued on 13.06.2001, much beyond the statutory period. The contention that the proviso to Section 73 empowers extension of period upto five years and demand notice issued on 13.06.2001 is well within the proviso to Section 73 of the Act cannot be accepted on the facts of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to under what circumstances extended period would apply. That is, where the service tax has not been levied or paid or short-levied or short-paid by reason of fraud or collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions or of the rules with an intent to evade payment of service tax. But, in the case on hand, the show-cause notice dated 13.06.2001 does not remotely indicate any of the above circumstances under which, time to demand would get extended. On perusal of show-cause notice, it is seen that there is no allegation with regard to fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, suppression of fact nor contravention of any provisions or rules to evade payment of service tax. The ingredients of Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
