9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 812X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent is a Government organization - Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the CESTAT is right in restricting the demand only for normal period without discussion and finding with regard to culpability of the respondent? - HELD THAT:- The SCN which came to be issued to respondent - assessee was based on intelligence input gathered by the officers of the appellant-revenue that there has been evasion of payment of service tax on the taxable services rendered by respondent - assessee. It is not the case of the appellant that there was either fraud perpetrated by the respondent or there has been any collusion or willful mis-statement of facts before the revenue. In the absence of any of these ingredients present, we are of the considered view that invoking of extended period of limitation would not arise. The Tribunal is just and correct and question of applying the extended period of limitation as provided in the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Act would not arise in the facts and circumstances of this case and demand raised for the restricted normal period as prescribed under Sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Act is proper - Appeal dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nagement or business consultancy service as per the provisions of Section 65(105)(r) of the Finance Act (for short, referred to as the Act ) which is a taxable service and same had not been paid. Said show-cause notice was duly replied denying the claim. The adjudicating authority i.e., Commissioner of Service Tax, after considering the reply and hearing the respondent - assessee, held that services provided by the respondent would fall under the category of taxable service namely management or business consultancy service as defined under Section 65(105)(r) of the Act vide Annexure-C Order-in- Original No.14/2013 dated 20.12.2013 and confirmed the demand for ₹ 2,58,40,805/- along with interest and penalty of ₹ 10,000/- each imposed under Section 77(1)(e) and Section 77(1)(b) as well as equal penalty was levied under Section 78 of the Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent filed an appeal before the CESTAT contending it being a Government organization and the possibility of two views being available to it with regard to activity carried by it, may not come under the category of Management or Business Consultancy , invoking of extended period of limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no doubt would start light from identification of a place to set up business and it cannot be said that management will start only after everything is done. Therefore when the appellant collects processing fee for various services which are required for setting up of industry, we can take a view that it amounts to rendering of the service of business consultancy. 7. Said finding of fact has been accepted by the respondent - assessee inasmuch as there is no appeal preferred by the assessee against said finding of fact as submitted by Sri Jeevan J.Neeralagi, learned counsel appearing for appellant. RE: SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW - 2 AND 3: 8. Tribunal, while confirming the demand raised under the Order-in-Original, has extended partial relief to the respondent namely it has held that extended period of limitation which was sought to be invoked by the revenue was inapplicable in the facts obtained in the instant case. Under Section 73 of the Act, the revenue is attempting to invoke extended period of limitation to contend or to buttress its arguments that respondent assessee is liable to pay service tax on the demand made beyond the period of one year. As such, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y refunded in the contingencies prescribed in Clauses (a) to (e) to proviso namely fraud or collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of service tax. 10. It is in this background, tribunal has held where there can be two views as to whether service provided by the respondent is management or business consultancy or not, cannot be a ground on which the department can invoke extended period of limitation. Since ingredients indicated in the proviso at Clauses (a) to (e) has neither been invoked against respondent while issuing show-cause notice nor the department having contended that non payment of service tax was by the reason of any clause mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) to the proviso of sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Act is attracted, order of the tribunal rejecting the prayer of revenue to invoke extended period of limitation cannot be found fault with. 11. Tribunal, no doubt, has expressed its view that it would be inappropriate to invoke extended period by a short order. It has been observed that respondent being a Government organ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxable services rendered by respondent - assessee. It is not the case of the appellant that there was either fraud perpetrated by the respondent or there has been any collusion or willful mis-statement of facts before the revenue. In the absence of any of these ingredients present, we are of the considered view that invoking of extended period of limitation would not arise. That apart, we also find that appropriate Government in exercise of vested power under Section 66-D of the Finance Act has issued negative list with effect from 01.07.2012, under which list respondent - assessee would not be liable to pay service tax at all. In fact, this observation which has been made by the Tribunal vide paragraph 2 of its order under challenge. It is in this background, we have noticed the submission made by learned counsel appearing for appellant that there is no appeal filed by the assessee against the order of confirmation of demand insofar as limited period of 30 months as indicated in Section 73(1) of Finance Act. 13. In the light of the aforestated discussion, we are of the considered view that order of the Tribunal is just and correct and question of applying the extended period o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
