9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is set aside on the ground of time barred. This has been considered in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX VERSUS VIJAY TRAVELS [ 2015 (1) TMI 809 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein the Hon ble Gujarat High Court while dealing with the demand for the longer period upheld the order of the Tribunal to the extent the demand was set aside on time bar. Even though the demand on merit was sustainable, but demand for the extended period was set aside. Considering this legal position is the present case since entire demand is beyond normal period the same is not sustainable - the penalties are also not sustainable. The impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed. - HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. RAMESH NAIR And HON'BLE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jay Travels 2014 (36) S.T.R. 513 (Guj.) Pearl Travels Versus Commissioner Of C. EX. S.T., Daman 2020 (37) G.S.T.L 242 (Tri.Ahmedabad) Sanghavi Travels Vs. C.C.E. S.T. Vadodara- II 2018 (8) TMI 558-CESTAT Ahmedabad Chaturvedi Travels Tours Vs. C.C.E. S.T. Indore 2017 (6) TMI 720-CESTAT New Delhi 2.3 He submits that entire demand which is for the period May 2008 to March 2010 is time barred, as the show cause notice was issued on 21.09.2011. 2.4 He further submits that in the facts of the present case since no any malafide is involved the penalty under Sections 76, 77 78 of the Finance Act 1994. Deserve to be set aside invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act 1994. On this submission he placed reliance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted by the petitioner in the year 2004 and one of the terms of its agreement with GSEB clearly indicates that liability to pay service tax shall be of the respondent. It also further held that necessary details as would be necessary for assessing the quantum of service tax were not furnished by the respondent and petitioner agreed not to have filed service tax return in his statement recorded and hence, this should be presumed as mala fide intention on the part of the respondent. It levied the penalty giving these reasonings. 24. Tribunal, however, treated this issue academic in nature and rightly so as it held in favour of the assessee on earlier adjudged issues (Nos. I and II). It, of course, held that no intentional suppression or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o can be said to be renting of a cab, petitioner if has not paid service tax on such services, the Tribunal correctly appreciated that such, by no stretch of imagination, be held as mis-statement or deliberate act of suppression or mala fide intent. 26. Both the notices being 31-8-2006 and 19-10-2007 since are given beyond the stipulated period invoking large period of limitation, we answer these issues in favour of the assessee holding that the Tribunal committed no error in deciding these issues. 27. In light of the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and the law on the subject, the aforementioned substantial questions of law raised in both these Tax Appeals are answered as follow : (a) Question Nos. I and II ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is sustainable, as regard penalty imposed under Section 76 and 78, we are of the view that simultaneous penalty under Section 76 and 78 cannot be imposed as held by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rawal Trading Company- 2016 (42) S.T.R. 210 (Guj.), therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 76 is set aside. Other penalties and interests to the extent demand was sustained, is imposable. 5. In view of the above judgments even though the demand on merit was sustainable, but demand for the extended period was set aside. Considering this legal position is the present case since entire demand is beyond normal period the same is not sustainable. Consequently the penalties are also not sustainable. Accordingly the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
