9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubject to levy of service tax. Although the Commissioner had rendered a finding that there is no suppression of facts with intend to evade payment of tax, the demand for the extended period has been confirmed. Such confirmation of demand is not legal and proper and requires to be set aside. The appellant succeeds on the ground of limitation - thus it is not necessary to delve into the merits of the case as the issue on limitation is answered in favour of assessee. The impugned order is set aside on the ground of limitation - appeal allowed. - SERVICE TAX APPEAL No. 40362/2013 - FINAL ORDER No. 40100/2023 - Dated:- 2-3-2023 - Hon ble MS. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S., MEMBER JUDICIAL And Hon ble Shri VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER TECHNICAL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... now before the Tribunal. 2.1 Learned Counsel Shri N. Viswanathan appeared and argued for the appellant and argued that the adjudicating authority has dropped the demand for the period from 09.07.2004 to 17.04.2006 on the ground that Section 66A has been introduced in the Finance Act, 1994 only with effect from 18.04.2006. The liability to pay service tax under RCM arises only from such date. However, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for the period after 18.04.2006 to 31.03.2007. It is urged that since service tax is a destination based tax and as the entire service is provided by the commission agents located in foreign countries and being consumed outside India without which the export of goods is not possible, such acti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may be dismissed. 4. Heard both sides. 5.1 Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued on merits of the case as well as on the ground of limitation. On perusal of records, we find that in paragraph 10 11, it has been categorically held by the Commissioner that there is no suppression of facts. The proposal to impose penalty has also been dropped holding that there was no suppression of facts and that non-payment of service tax was due to bonafide belief that the amount paid to the commission agents is not subject to levy of service tax. The said discussion is reproduced as under:- 10. As regards the invoking of extended time limit, the assessee contended that they were under bonafide belief that they are not coming under servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded that the non-payment of service tax was due to bonafide belief; that they paid the service tax liability for the period from 18.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 along with interest after being pointed out by the department and requested for waiver of penalty under Section 80 of the Act. As discussed in previous paragraphs, the non-payment of service tax is not on account of suppression of facts but due to bonafide belief and hence the provisions of Section 80 of the Act are squarely applicable to the present case. Therefore, I am inclined to accept the assessee s plea for waiver of penalty under Section 80 of the Finance Act. Accordingly, I hold that no penalty is imposable on the assessee either under Section 76,77 or 78 of the act. 5.2 Alth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
